Such outrage has typified the reaction to the last two Wabash Christian Men speakers, both of whom spoke on the effects of pornography – and had the audacity to frame their struggles with it in spiritual terms. The reactions had a similar theme: that religion, or the evangelical Christianity anyway, could never be mixed with academics – that the lectures, being motivated by a religious agenda, were tainted and devoid of academic value. “We do not have a problem with religion in and of itself,” The Bachelor wrote after Michael Leahy presented Porn Nation to Wabash College last spring, “However, we do have a problem passing religion off as some sort of honest and open exploration of an issue.” In other words, conservative Christianity is all right for dunces who do not wish to engage in “honest and open” discussion. But when those dunces start to give lectures in an academic environment, why, then, the entire foundation of critical thought at Wabash is beginning to crumble!

Those looking for a complete separation of church and thought will not likely be pleased with Dr. Menton’s style. His lectures are often laced with Biblical passages and overt Christian references. He leaves no doubt that his agenda is an evangelical one. He believes that he has a duty to “reach teens and college students with the creation / gospel message,” according to the Answers in Genesis website. However, his arguments, should his many inevitable critics on this campus choose to listen, are not entirely without merit. They are, to say the least, acceptable contributions to our College’s discourse—certainly not to be discarded because of their spiritual nature.

Dr. Menton received his B.A. from Mankato State University in Mankato, Minnesota, and his Ph. D. in cell biology from Brown University. He taught anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, where he was honored as “Professor of the Year” in 1998. He has written numerous papers on creation science and contributed his writing to the book War of the Worldviews, along with eight of his fellow creationist from Answers in Genesis. Dr. Menton recently gained a larger level of national prominence due to the opening of the well-publicized Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, in 2007. He has appeared on the media circuit in promotion of the museum, most notably on ABC’s World News Tonight with Charles Gibson.

The controversial Creation Museum, which promotes the idea of a young earth in which man and dinosaurs once lived side by side, is funded by donations to Answers in Genesis – an evolution, so to speak, of various creationist groups from the 1970s which were composed of scientists who bucked the scientific majority on the origin of earth and mankind in favor of a worldview still compatible with the Biblical accounts in Genesis. Their ideas are, at a minimum, very debatable. But at Wabash College, there should be a free market of ideas. If ideas are debatable, then let there be debate. The visceral reaction to Christian speakers from many on campus sometimes gives the impression that creationists are correct in one of their common criticisms of their critics—that they are afraid to hear alternative points of view.

Dr. Menton is most certainly a creationist. He believes the Biblical account of Genesis to be literal fact. Critics will no doubt accuse his ideas of being “unscientific” as a result. But, as Dr. Menton has pointed out, that all depends on what the meaning of the word “science” is. “In its broadest sense, the word science merely means knowledge or experience,” he wrote in a 1998 issue of The Lutheran Witness, “But when most of us think about the wonderful achievements of science, we are generally thinking of a particular type of science known as empirical science.” Empirical science, of course, is the scientific method which we were all taught in grade school and continue to be taught at Wabash. By that definition, most creationists will admit, creation science is indeed “unscientific.”

But Dr. Menton prefers to use the word “science” in the much broader sense of gaining knowledge of the world around us – or, to a creationist, knowledge of God’s handiwork. The creation scientist’s dispute, then, is not with science itself, but with the narrow definition that it has come to represent.

He identifies what are, in his view, three problems with limiting the definition of science to empirical science alone. First, empirical science must deal with things that are observable. Second, the phenomena that are being observed must be repeatable. And third, the hypotheses that are generated by the observations must be testable. His argument is that neither the theory of evolution nor creation is “science” in this regard. In an empirical sense, neither will ever be proven “scientifically.” Neither will ever be scientific fact. The creationist’s belief in Genesis is more by faith than by evidence. The creationist’s agenda is more to critique theories which make that account impossible, than to prove the account itself to be true.

Dr. Menton and his fellow creationists, along with the less officially religious proponents of “Intelligent Design,” do just that. They offer critiques of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Some of their points are valid. Some of them, most likely, are not. But a critique of evolution should be welcomed on this campus just as much as a critique of any other theory, regardless of the speaker’s religious beliefs or motivations.

The critiques offered by creationists vary from individual to individual, but most of them focus on the inherent complexity of life on earth and argue that it is impossible, or infinitely improbable, for such life to emerge by random mutation. Dr. Menton, being a professor of anatomy by trade, likes to focus on the human eye. He likes to point out that Charles Darwin himself marveled over its complexity. The human eye is an organ of matchless sophistication, each individual part seemingly dependent upon the rest of the eye to function properly. For such an incredibly interdependent organ to evolve by virtue of random mutations, creationists posit, would be near impossible, since each step leading up to final product would not be functional and would be subject to elimination by natural selection. Darwin had an explanation for the eye’s evolution (one that is admittedly far too complex for the simple history major writing this piece to even attempt to outline), but even he freely acknowledged that the proposition that such an incredible instrument evolved by chance seemed to be “absurd in the highest possible degree.”

Continuing to focus on his specialty in the realm of anatomy, Dr. Menton also builds similar cases around the human ear, bones, and hair, claiming that they are far too complex to have been brought about by anything other than an intelligent Creator. He likes to quote a Scriptural proverb when talking about these points: “The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the LORD hath made them both” (Proverbs 20:12). For Dr. Menton, it seems that science, the study of God’s creation, is both an academic and a spiritual endeavor. The two need not be mutually exclusive. The spirituality inherent in Dr. Menton’s lectures does not limit his ability to make an argument that has secular viability, and should not be sufficient cause for the usual protesters on campus to huff and puff about his even being invited to speak. He represents a frequently neglected voice of both science and Christianity in an academic environment that is too often aggressively secular in its bias, but he is not, as his critics prone to name-calling may claim, unintelligent.

Dr. Menton has distinguished himself in the realm of academics, obtaining his Ph. D. from an Ivy League school in the scientific area of cell biology. He writes not just about creation, but about also other biology topics, including the barrier function and the biomechanics of skin. When it comes to science, he is no dunce. His arguments are often derided for the mere fact that he offers critiques of a theory that has been accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. In other words, he is ridiculed for being unwilling to accept what everyone tells him he should, for challenging the scientific status quo, for coming to his own conclusions about a subject where most people seem to be in lockstep. Whether you agree with his conclusions or not, or even his methods of reaching them, is this not the essence of critical thought? Too often it is assumed that acknowledgment of a Creator inhibits critical thought. It is time that more respect is afforded to those for whom critical thought leads to acknowledgment of a Creator.

Related posts:

1. An Encouragement to Think Critically
2. Creation at Wabash
3. Socks for Christmas: Dr. Ayala’s Gift to Wabash

Sax has an M.D. and Ph. D. in psychology. He has written two books on single sex education, and he is a family health doctor. He came to Wabash College to speak about single sex education, or at least that was what he was supposed to speak about. “I thought he was going to be helping us explain to ourselves why we should be a men’s college,” said Dr. Mark Brouwer. “I think he utterly failed.”

Instead, Sax lectured on biological differences between the learning styles of males and females. Those differences are the reasons that he supports single sex education. He does not at all favor one sex over the other but instead wants what he thinks is best for education. He did not take seriously the reasons why Wabash College is an all male institution and has remained that way for over 175 years. There is obviously something special about the College, and Sax overlooked that during his visit to Wabash College. Instead, he spent his time relaying his biological reasoning for single sex classrooms and preached that education should embrace gender differences.

The student body of Wabash College was invited to attend a student reading group that met weekly. Led by senior Josh Bellis, the group read a chapter out of either of Sax’s books on a weekly basis and met to discuss how Sax’s books relate to Wabash College. The group met leading up to Sax’s arrival on campus, and then had the opportunity to have lunch with Sax when he was on campus. After Dr. Sax’s visit, they met one last time and came to one basic conclusion. Sax brought information with him, but in terms of reaching the group’s goal of relating his work to Wabash College, Dr. Sax’s visit was useless.

During the lunch, Sax made a comment on how many of the students at Wabash College wore their school’s t-shirts and the students seemed focused on their academics, or at least more so at Wabash that at other institutions. This was the only sign that I saw that Sax was trying to see what Wabash College is about. This is not to say that Sax’s visit was entirely useless, but it certainly was with regards to reaching the student reading group’s goal. Of course he probably sold a couple of his books and succeeded as a salesman, but he did not sell the group as a whole on his material.

Soon after Sax departed from Wabash College, he was interviewed on Minnesota Public Radio. The interview in its entirety can be heard at http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/11/28/midmorning2/. By skipping ahead to 26 minutes and 30 seconds, one will hear the words that many students at Wabash College have claimed to be offensive.

“I was at Wabash College in Crawfordsvill,e Indiana, two weeks ago and asked the young men there what does the word ‘gentlemen’ means to you… mean to you? And the first answer, the most overwhelmingly common answer was ‘a gentlemen is someone who goes to gentlemen’s clubs and watches women take off their clothes.’ And they’re not joking that’s what… that’s the most common way that word is used. Forty years ago if you said to a boy ‘be a man’ he knew what that meant.”

After another typical Wabash College e-mail discussion, I felt it was time to think Sax’s comments through. I believe that something to his research has truth to it, and I felt it was wrong for Sax to lose all credibility from Wabash College over one comment he made over public radio. I e-mailed Sax and asked if he would please explain himself. He did not respond which might be another sign of his failure to associate with Wabash. Regardless, there is something to Sax’s comment that needs to be examined whether he will address it or not.

The first time someone hears these words from Sax, it sounds like he is attacking men at Wabash College as being a bad representative of a gentleman. After many discussions with students at Wabash College about the definition of a gentleman, I have realized that it is very unlikely that this comment was truly quoted from a Wabash student. I had to give Sax the benefit of the doubt and submit to the fact that a student at Wabash College could have made the comment that, “a gentleman is someone who goes to gentlemen’s clubs and watches women take off their clothes.” After all, I would hope that he would follow the principle behind the Gentleman’s Rule and not make a false quote.

Under this assumption, of course, I hoped that this was in a joking manner. In looking at the rest of Sax’s comment, one will see that he does not mention that he was at an all male institution. He also, if one takes the time to listen to more of the radio show, spends time leading up to this comment that popular culture shows men as slackers and thugs. Here is the real problem with Sax’s comment. As mentioned earlier, Sax supports single sex education. If this is the case, then why would he mention that Wabash men, an all male school, have fallen down to the level of popular culture?

Whether he meant it or not, it is obvious that Wabash College does not fall into the abyss of popular culture, where Sax could arguably be falling towards. After all, Sax loosely used the word gentleman in trying to make a point for himself. Not only was it selfish and thoughtless, but it demonstrates that he does not understand the meaning that the word “gentleman” holds. It is obvious that the residents of Wabash College value the word “gentleman” more than Sax simply by observing their reaction to Sax’s interview. The students obviously know what it means to be a gentleman, even if they do not always show it on and off campus.

Sax’s comment is a true comment if the words Wabash College are taken out and a co-ed college of choice is inserted. Wabash men know how to describe a gentleman. Since we are all gentlemen, I think we should act like it when talking about Sax.

Of course Sax’s comment makes Wabash College look poorly. Knowing that it had to be a mistake, unless Sax really does not believe in single sex education in which case he is wasting time and money, I urge every student at Wabash College to keep their minds open to Sax’s research. He might just be days away from proving to the country that Wabash men are not antiquated fools for choosing a college without girls. However, if your reputation has been ruined by a comment by one man, then prove him wrong and show the world the type of gentlemen that attends Wabash College.

It becomes very difficult to stand up against Sax and claim that Wabash men know what it means to be a gentleman when my inbox is clogged with emails about obscene vandalisms or I see holes kicked into someone’s artwork. It is time for Wabash men to stop talking about being gentlemen and to start showing that they are gentlemen. Remember, actions speak louder than words. It is possible Sax saw this schools actions rather than listening to their words.

Related posts:

1. To Be a Wabash Man: Five Words of Wisdom for the Class of 2014
2. Paul Kengor: A Truthful Gentleman
3. What do we Mean by a College? Words of Wisdom from the Past

In his talk Mr. Connerly spoke about his work as a member of the California Board of Regents and his activism in getting laws passed that seek to end race-based college admission preferences in California, Michigan and Washington, as well as ending racially motivated affirmative action in the California public university system. This issue is one that clearly transcends political boundaries as these typically leftist states have voted in favor of Mr. Connerly’s legislation. More importantly, however, was the main point outlined by Mr. Connerly that affirmative action as an idea is great but when based on inappropriate ideology, like racial stereotypes, it can be harmful. Mr. Connerly also stated that he believed in and would support certain affirmative action practices that were based on economic status rather than race.

In the question and answer period of the lecture, the floor was opened to questions from students and professors alike, and it was during this period that the above quote came from Dr. Aden. The question and answer period went very smoothly with professors and students asking very pertinent and intelligent questions until Dr. Aden, in reference to a point brought up by Visiting Owen Duston Assistant Professor of English, Dr. Ravyn Wilson-Bernard, began to rant for nearly 5 minutes during which he did not bother to even ask a question. This act alone was very rude to the students and professors who had legitimate questions to ask Mr. Connerly. As Mr. Connerly stood patiently during Aden’s emotional rant he was clearly bored by the unintelligible tirade of Dr. Aden. Yet, it was the contents of Dr. Aden’s rant that was most alarming.

During this rant, Dr. Aden repeatedly referred to “whites” as brutal, violent, and rapacious. He also stated that, “So what you are asking people of color to do is to trust the descendents [undergraduate students, as defined by Dr. Aden] of the same white majority that engaged in these rapacious, brutal, violent tactics, to administer a system fairly.” This statement shows a fundamental flaw in the ideology by Dr. Aden. First of all, it displays an assumption that the majority of white students are direct descendents of racists, which I would argue is not only a flawed assumption but one that is clearly incorrect. Secondly, it assumes that if the first assumption is correct, then racism is something that is inherent by birth and that the current generation of undergraduate students is inherently racist.

Another severely problematic notion that this implies is that Dr. Aden does not trust “whites” or the current generation of undergraduate students as a whole, since according to Dr. Aden undergraduates students are a majority of “whites.” Basically, the students who are passing through Aden’s teaching and guidance, as a respected professor, are being exposed to a man who either does not trust them, solely on the basis of their race, or is instilling in students who are not “white” a defeatist ideology that pits them against their fellow students and colleagues.

In continuation of this severely flawed ideology Dr. Aden stated to Mr. Connerly that, “However well intentioned your argument… that argument works in the service of white privilege, of extending it and maintaining it, of telling majority students, white kids, ‘hey you don’t have to worry about the historical benefits you’ve accrued through this society or your parents or your grandparents, through this brutal, violent, rapacious, system…. You can’t convince people of color that we should trust the descendents of these people when they don’t want us necessarily to be included.” Not only does this statement work to diminish the accomplishments of “white” students or “kids” by attributing their intelligence and achievements to white privilege and not to their hard work or level of scholarship, but it goes so far as to further the notion of Dr. Aden’s mistrust in “whites.” Dr Aden continues to make general assumptions, as he clearly does throughout his rant, to further his ideology. He also assumes that the current generation of white students does not want to include “people of color” in society, which is also a statement that has no factual basis.

Most of Dr. Aden’s ideology, in his statements, assumes that there is a wide ranging conspiracy and hatred for blacks that exists especially in the current generation of white undergraduate students. This also has no factual basis. Every “fact” that would need to be true for Dr. Aden’s logic to work exists solely in theory and, as you saw by reading his quotes, has not a shred of factual information other than the obvious historical truths.

Mr. Connerly showed, in his response to Aden’s rant, what is the most pertinent problem with Dr. Aden’s logic, which is that by operating under this mistrust of whites, Dr. Aden is only furthering the inability to make progress in the area of race relations. The more supposed differences between races that are highlighted, the more race issues become a problem. If we as a society and community can reach the point where race is not an issue then we will be able to truly make progress towards greater equality. What Mr. Connerly spoke of during his initial talk was the idea that by ending practices of racial preference in government, we are working towards that goal of a color blind society. We as a society are clearly not to that point as of yet, but it is of no help to achieving this lofty and laudable goal when people like Dr. Aden exacerbate racial problems by attempting to set himself and other people of color apart from everyone else. If we all assume that the supposed other is against us, then no progress will ever be made. It is when we can assume and hope for the best in others that we may make progress in becoming a more equal society.

One of the biggest concerns this situation brings forth is the fact that Dr. Aden is on the path to almost certainly be granted tenure. Although he is a well studied historian and scholar, this does not qualify his political views as anymore intelligent or righteous. Also, presenting his notions in such an emotional and unintelligible fashion was clearly inappropriate for the situation. What needs to be taken into account is the fact that professors, especially those who have been granted tenure, are representatives and dignitaries of Wabash College and must act accordingly. For someone who represents the College to speak to a guest of the College in such a way, conveying severely flawed and racially motivated ideology, is unacceptable. Furthermore to communicate an idea that is very insulting and assuming of an entire race of students is extremely offensive. Many students (including myself) heard these remarks and were astounded that our ethnicity and genealogy was being attacked openly in such a fashion, especially in a way that was completely incorrect.

The lack of reaction from the College, the student body, and the faculty is one of the most difficult aspects of this occurrence to fathom. Many students, faculty, and members of the Wabash community were present to hear Dr. Aden’s remarks and yet nothing was said in response to them and no actions were taken. If a professor were to make similar remarks, within a public forum at any institution in the nation, that belittled and degraded any other race, it is safe to assume that there would have been some level of outrage within the community. That any member of the Wabash community, especially a highly respected professor who will almost undoubtedly soon have tenure, would openly speak against and berate a racial group is an extremely frightening idea, but that the community at large would not respond to such brutal comments and divisive claims tells a great deal about the current state of Wabash College.

Related posts:

1. The Dreaded “W”: A Story of Tradition and Lost Trust

In an interview with Professor Webb, I discovered what kind of response he has gotten from the call for student, alumni, and faculty support.
“The response has been great,” said Professor Webb. “There is a pretty good group of alumni who have expressed interest, all on the basis of The Phoenix article, and I haven’t really begun talking to alumni about it yet. Many students have asked if they can help. I think once we begin getting better organized and get the word out, more people will want to be involved.”

In just a matter of a few months, this concept has gone from an idea to a project rapidly gaining momentum. Immediately following the article, emails began to pour into Prof. Webb’s inbox with overwhelming support for this new project.

One example of such support is from Luke Blakeslee ’11. He said in response to Prof. Webb’s column, “It’s encouraging for Christian students to see such supportive faculty. Rather than just simply sit back and hope to see your idea come about, I’d like to also be involved in the effort, to be an active part of such a worthy endeavor.”

The immediate desire of Christian students on campus to help with this project says a great deal about the desire of the Christian students on campus wanting to have a connection with other supportive students, professors, and community members. The Studies Center will be a place for Catholics, Protestants, and other Christians on campus to convene in one place with people who share the same basic beliefs.

It would also serve as a common ground for Christian groups on campus- most notably Wabash Christian Men and the Newman Center. David Haggard, president of the Newman Center, said, “Things will still be done separately, but it will enhance [The Newman Center] because it will bring people together for conversations. It will give us an equal forum for us to discuss things.”

This equal forum for discussion is exactly what the purpose of the Center is going to be. Professor Webb envisions it being a sort of community Christian center. He said in the original article, “We envision working with Crawfordsville churches to achieve our goals. People with connections to area churches are encouraged to become a part of this project. We want this Center to be a place that makes connections between local churches and Wabash students.”

Making connections with students seems to make sense as many students are not aware of the opportunities and events that many local churches have. Students may not know what local churches offer and what they, in turn, can do for the churches.

Even if not directly affiliated with the College, it could enhance the school’s image and its attractiveness to possible future students. David Haggard said, “It will show [future students] that we take our faith seriously. Many small, liberal arts schools have lost connection with their religious past. This would show that we are serious about our faith.”
When asked about what the Center could do for the College’s image, Student Body President Juan Carlos Venis said, “I don’t feel that it would detract from the Wabash image in any way. I highly value the diversity of our College’s community. A Christian Studies Center, as described by Dr. Webb, could facilitate further exploration of personal beliefs for many interested students, faculty, and staff, as well as Crawfordsville community members.”

It seems then, that a common theme of this Center would be to help enhance the exploration of personal beliefs. Thus, it is easy to draw the comparison that this facility would fit directly into the Wabash mission of educating students to “Think Critically” and “Live Humanely.”

Although the vision is for Wabash College, it goes beyond this campus to Crawfordsville and beyond. Webb said, “It could become a real center for Christian activities for several colleges and universities in central Indiana.” After its initial start here at Wabash, the proposed Center could really be groundbreaking in Indiana and the Midwest. As Professor Webb stated in his column, “Christian Centers are already established or are being established at many Ivy League universities.” He went on to mention in our conversation that there are none in Indiana. Wabash College could be on the cutting-edge of independent religious exploration and research at the collegiate level in Indiana.

Even with alumni and student support strong so far, the administration’s response has not been as strong. “So far, the administration has taken a very cautious, even suspicious approach to the idea,” Webb said, “but I think further dialogue will convince them that this will be a great thing for the College. We want to work outside the official College structure for the good of the College. We want to be partners with the College for the good of the Christian community.”

This lukewarm reception to the idea was almost inevitable, given the uneasy situations present when religion is involved. The results of the Quality of Life study released last fall should help make sense of the response by administration. Some faculty comments in that survey included “religion is too public an issue,” and that there is an “excessive emphasis on Christianity among students and some faculty.” One faculty member, however, wrote that “student spirituality is underserved.”

This Center would more than likely revive even more of those sentiments, but that may not be a bad thing on a campus that challenges students to “Think Critically.” Whether they think religion is “too public an issue” or that “spirituality is underserved,” most people seem to have a consensus in one area: keeping it completely separate from the College.
Mr. Venis said, “I agree completely with Dr. Webb’s feelings regarding the Center’s independence from the College. I feel there are several community members that will participate and many who will not. Giving them the opportunity and freedom to choose so is important and respectful of the diverse group of people at this College.”

Professor Webb echoed this sentiment, albeit in a different form. He seems to focus on the perception that increasingly, students are seeking out religion more and more, while there are very few resources for students to use. “Wabash has done so much for so many constituent groups at the College, but Christian students are kind of neglected, and that’s probably inevitable given a strongly secular faculty. We really want this to be a gift to Wabash from the Christian community.” This new Christian Studies Center as it has been laid out certainly would be a gift.

All of this may be good, but there are some questions that still have not been answered. What step is next? What is being done now? “We are in the most preliminary stages. It’s really just a vision right now,” Professor Webb stated. His focus right now is on lining up alumni who would be willing to support it and gaining more and more student support. This should give enough of a foundation to move this Center on to the next stage: realization of the vision.

Eventually, students will be called upon to help brainstorm for this center through the student leadership board proposed in his original article. The next step after forming that board will be to “begin some modest fundraising activities among current students, as a way of demonstrating student support and excitement about this project.” From there, interested alumni will get involved with the development of the Center.

Although it seems ambitious right now, there is much excitement and hope for this project at Wabash. Even if it is not necessarily available for current students, there are many who see it as a way to leave a mark on Wabash long after they have graduated, or in Professor Webb’s case, retired to a beach somewhere. Webb sees that it may take a while, but that it will last long after us. “It is something I think Christians at Wabash can give to the next generation, a legacy for the future.”

To get involved in helping with the Christian Studies Center email Professor Webb at webbs@wabash.edu.

Related posts:

1. Announcing a New Wabash Center: The Christian Studies Center
2. Webb vs. Rocha: A Look at the Chauvinism of Open Discourse
3. Wabash Conservative Union to Host E. Christian Kopff

The Phoenix has continually covered the process of the strategic plan and will continue to do so. As you may remember from previous issues, President White decided to develop a bottom-up strategy for this plan. In his chapel talk last spring he outlined four main topics. A committee was created for each of these four items: 1) Learning and teaching about the men of Wabash, 2) Learning and teaching about Wabash as a liberal arts college for men, 3) Learning and teaching about the full implications of Wabash as a residential community, 4) Learning and teaching about the role of Wabash and Wabash men in the larger world. The committees consist of members of the faculty and staff and are led by the Deans.

After meeting several times over the course of the semester to address the broad topics outlined by President White, the committees produced strategic planning drafts. The results are disheartening. The Board of Trustees will examine these drafts, and President White will eventually combine them into one coherent strategic plan document. That document will go back to the Board of Trustees to be discussed, edited, and approved.

There are several problems with this process. First, it puts the foundation of the plan in the hands of the faculty. President White created a student advisory committee, which he uses to listen to the opinions of students; however he does not attend the meetings of the four planning committees. Instead, Jim Amidon, director of public relations, serves as his representative on each committee. It would have been wise to add one or two Wabash men to each committee to assure their true involvement in the process.

In explaining my overall disappointment with committees’ work, committee number two provides some specific evidence. “Learning and Teaching about Wabash as a Liberal Arts College for Men,” led by Dean Phillips, is made up of mostly of faculty members, and the committee focused mainly on improving faculty quality of life and topics of diversity while barely mentioning all-male education. While the topic had to do with learning and teaching, the focus was on faculty and teaching. It seems clear, especially in committee number two’s report, that student opinions did not play much of a role.

As a whole, the strategic planning drafts are extremely vague, consisting of simple, broad value statements with which most people can easily agree. For example, one point reads “Wabash will promote new opportunities for faculty/student engagement fitting for a 21st century world.” Such a blanket statement reduces the probability of conflicts about what opportunities should be promoted, but it fails to actually say anything substantive. During the Academic Policy Committee meeting on January 14th, some faculty members raised questions regarding the vagueness of the proposal. Professor Phil Mikesell said that people are not really going to disagree with the broad principles. He went on to say that it is tough to go ahead and approve them without knowing more about what will specifically be implemented. In other words, the committees just created broad, easily accepted statements, and then sought approval for them. No one is going to disagree that we should learn how to function in a 21st century world, but agreeing to that principle serves no purpose without talking about how we are going to do it.

On Friday January 25th, students had their first chance to actually participate in the process. Juniors and sophomores were invited to have dinner with the Board of Trustees to discuss the strategic plan. Let us hope that the Board heard the concerns of the students and will implement the necessary changes to this plan, particularly in the areas of all-male education and diversity.

The Future of All-Male Education at Wabash

Wabash College will “lead in developing a national understanding of the values of single-sex education for men.” This statement sounds like an excellent idea that many of our readers, students, alumni, and even a few members of the faculty could get behind. Unfortunately, that statement is not part of the 2008 strategic plan; it is from the 2004 strategic plan, and nothing serious was ever enacted regarding this goal. But, with a relatively new administration that has been outspoken in its support of all-male education, and a new strategic plan, surely we will see a renewal of this proposal and will also see a great deal of action on the issue right? Again, unfortunately at this point it seems unlikely. The current draft proposed by a committee led by Dean Phillips has only one point on the issue of all-male education. Strangely, the statement about all male education comes under the section of the committee draft entitled “Teaching and learning that deals forthrightly with diversity in all its manifestations.” It reads “Wabash will develop curricular and co-curricular opportunities for critical exploration of the nature of a college for men.” Why would this point be listed under a section about diversity? Also, does this change in language display simply a wording change or is it a step back for this college’s belief in all-male education?

I asked Dean Phillips that second question. He responded by saying “I don’t think that is implied at all, I think the question is that central question to the identity of the institution becomes first and foremost the thing that the college has to figure out before it can go out and lead the nation in a discussion about this. I mean we haven’t yet figured out all the better ways to have that discussion here amongst ourselves.” Does this mean that in 2004 we understood how to talk about all-male education and now in 2008 we need to figure it all out again?

Dean Phillips and I will have to disagree on this one. It is weak language that will lead to absolutely nothing being done. Even though nothing was accomplished in the previous strategic plan, at least the statement was clear and strong. Now we have gone from developing an “understanding of the values of single-sex education,” to merely “exploring its nature.” This vague language is open to many interpretations and I am certain that many of us can guess what direction some faculty members might take their exploration of this subject. While the statement does not seem menacing at first, it opens the door to all sorts of interpretations on an issue which requires the utmost clarity from the college.

When I spoke to President White, I asked him what he saw as the goal of the “exploration.” He explained that the College hopes to find the best way to articulate the value of all male education. My question is, why not clarify this is the statement? Encouragingly, committee number three’s draft, which dealt with residential life, proposed to “Articulate the values of a college for men.” The difference of a weak statement from a more specific goal, may in this case have to do with the makeup of the committees’ members. Dean Phillips’ committee was made up of mainly faculty members, and committee three, led by Dean Bambrey, was made up of a mix of college faculty, staff, and administrators. As I mentioned before, it will be President White’s decision on what language with which to go forward.

It is my hope that through student and alumni influence that President White and the Board of Trustees will edit the strategic plan so that it will be “more intentional” in dealing with all-male education. I hope that the final language will reflect the views of so many of our Wabash community who are proud of Wabash’s all-male status; a status that adds unique character to American higher education and character that should not be kept to ourselves, but should be promoted and celebrated.

Strategic Plan: The Future of Diversity at Wabash

“Wabash will develop an informed understanding and create a supportive environment for members of our community who represent different genders, sexual orientations, and abilities, and who come from different racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds.”

WOW! I am exhausted just reading that statement from the strategic plan draft. With a whole semester of planning, couldn’t committee number two have come up with a longer list of kinds of people we will create a supportive environment for? I mean, we could list out every political view we can think of and create a supportive environment for that. What about people from different family backgrounds? What about people from different regional backgrounds? Will these people have a supportive environment? I have a suggestion. Instead of trying to identify various types of people by creating a list of things we will support, we could change the statement to read “Wabash will develop an informed understanding and create a supportive environment for everyone.” The proponents of “equality” would do well to promote this kind of language instead of developing lists to cover only certain kinds of people. The draft statement also implies that the current environment is not supportive, an assumption that many see as unfounded.

Diversity is important, there is no denying it. It certainly is true that we all need to understand that there are respect for differences between people is extremely important. However, when language like “create a supportive environment” becomes both official and prevalent, a fine line is tread between raising issues for students to think about and trying to transform their beliefs.

Creating a so-called supportive environment may be applied through mandating diversity. This is happening already at Wabash – very slowly, and very quietly, but it is happening. Whether through diversity training as a requirement during Freshmen Orientation or the hiring of faculty whose sole academic focus is diversity, Wabash has forced the issue of “diversity” upon the students. The College has even begun seeking out prospective students who fit the categories listed in this strategic plan draft (racial, ethnic, cultural, etc.) above the category of individual merit in order to improve our national rankings. The only categories for admission should be whether or not a student is academically qualified, and whether or not they will be good Wabash men.

This past year freshmen were required to attend a mandatory indoctrination – or rather – an informational session entitled “Living and Learning in a Diverse Community” during their orientation. Who do you suppose spoke at this event? Perhaps a group of students and faculty making up different ideas and fitting the different categories we keep mentioning? Wrong. Instead the event was run by the Malcolm X Institute director Dr. Tim Lake with the assistance of Amina McIntyre. One has to wonder what the College means by diversity when only an institute of black studies is instructing students about it. This is a very narrow view of diversity that is not healthy for our college. Also, let it be noted; the new draft states that “Wabash will create an orientation program for new students, faculty, and staff that is intentional in its focus on diversity.” Apparently “Living and Learning in a Diverse Community” was not adequately intentional.

I asked President White about his thoughts on diversity at Wabash, and he raised some interesting questions. He said one of the things we need to think about is “How much diversity?” Or, at what point do we decide we are sufficiently diverse? I would ask the question, do the people who drafted this plan envision a time when we will not have to list out things that we will accept? Do our committee members have numbers in their heads of how many students and faculty members we need in each of these categories for it to be enough? If we want to have a supportive environment for everyone, we should stop identifying people solely by the things listed in this draft and instead treat members of our community fairly despite our differences. Lumping people into categories and using them as statistics is demeaning. These categories do not and should not define what our Wabash community considers important about an individual’s identity.

What Can Be Done?

My sincere hope is that President White will adjust these reports so that they will accurately reflect what so many of us want for the future of the college. I hope he will actively seek out, and listen to the input of students, alumni, and all faculty members. I urge students to contact President White. Please tell him what you want for the future of Wabash. I recommend that alumni contact other alumni and let them know what is going on. I encourage everyone to contact any members of the Board of Trustees they may know. Also, to our alumni readers, we love receiving letters and emails from you. Let us know what you think about this. You can read the drafts at http://www.wabash.edu/facstaff/plan.cfm. The Phoenix will continue to follow the pan’s progress. While it is apparent that Dean Phillips has had a great deal of control over the strategic plan thus far, we hope that President White will show strong leadership create a strong strategic plan. Here are two suggestions for him and for the Trustees from the Wabash Conservative Union:

1) Wabash will promote a better understanding of the values of a college for men.
2) Wabash will continue raising discussions so that students will think critically in order to better understand all peoples of the world.

The WCU will work hard to see that these changes are made, and will continue to hope and pray that the strategic plan will positively affect the future of Wabash College.

Related posts:

1. Bit by Bit, Piece by Piece: A Look at How the Strategic Plan Has Progressed
2. A Healthy Wabash: A Democrat Critiques Current Trends at the College
3. How Many Women Should Teach at Wabash?

Started in earnest in the fall of 2005, Dr. Royalty has spent much time in libraries poring over both ancient and modern documents with a critical mind. What he is writing is “a history of rhetoric and discourse” concerning the development of a Christian orthodoxy in the early history of the faith. Dr. Royalty is not concerned with the theological differences between “orthodox” and “heretics” per se, but rather the methods by which orthodox Christianity gained the upper hand in the theological struggles. Rather than studying doctrine, Dr. Royalty is focusing on theological politics.

The book is based on the premise that early Christians were a diverse group. They came from sundry backgrounds and carried with them different suppositions about the nature of Christianity. After Christ was crucified, there was no one group that held the mantle of “true” Christianity. There were many divisions. The disunity observed was not unique to Christianity. All faiths have had their dissenters and some level of disunity. However, the way in which Christianity dealt with that disunity is fairly unique, especially in comparison to its theological ancestor, Judaism. Within the Jewish faith, disagreements on the halakha (law) were dealt with through majority rule. Dissents were noted but were not considered reasons for expulsion from the Jewish faith. However, the exact opposite occurred with Christianity, where an “orthodox” party gained control of established Christianity, tolerated little dissention, and excluded the “heretics” from the faith. In his book, Dr. Royalty seeks to answer the question: “How did this happen?”

According to Dr. Royalty, this process started early during the Apostolic Era and can be seen in the epistles of St. Paul. In some of his writings, Paul is pre-heresiological. He seeks to negotiate with some of the dissent instead of simply squashing it. This is particularly present in 1 Corinthians, where, though he admonishes the Corinthians for bad behavior and practice, he does not condemn the dissenters as Satanic. However, this shifts as time goes on. Paul later starts to more willingly write people out of the Christian faith, such as the legalistic Judaizers in Galatians.

Perhaps another tactic of the orthodox party was to draw closer to the Roman Empire. In its infancy, Christianity was very eschatological in nature. Christians, such as Paul, were looking for Christ’s Second Coming to occur in the immediate future. Therefore, there was no great need to rebel against the Roman Empire. While the Roman Empire may have been anti-Christian, Christians had an obligation to obey the laws of Rome. As Paul wrote in Romans: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities…Pay to all what is due to them – taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due” (Romans 13:1,7). Paul’s attitude was essentially to ignore Rome and politics and instead focus on spirituality. After Paul was martyred and Christianity grew, this attitude changed as it became apparent that Christ was not going to reappear as soon as previously expected. Therefore, according to Dr. Royalty, the orthodox party adopted a worldview that reasoned that “if you’re going to be in a world, it might as well be a Christian world.” Therefore, Christians began to come out of the woodwork and deal with the Roman Empire. A growing attempt to make Christianity acceptable within the Roman Empire began. This, according to Dr. Royalty, can be evidenced in the Book of Acts, which “narrates a tradition of Christianity being at home in Rome.” Indeed, Acts plays to the Roman obsession with ancient religions by connecting Christianity to Judaism, hence giving the new faith an ancient lineage and legitimacy. Dr. Royalty also suggests that this Christian flirtation with Rome was also a political ploy by the orthodox party. By being more accepting of Rome, the orthodox were claiming to be good citizens, drawing a contrast against heretics who were more anti-Roman in nature. This would bring Roman political favor upon the orthodox, while the Roman political structure would view the other Christian parties as being illegitimate and worthy of destruction. This political tactic came to fruition during the times of Constantine, the Roman emperor who converted to Christianity and legalized the faith. Hence, the orthodox were able to push the heretics out of Christianity and become of the arbiters of the faith.

Dr. Royalty is nearly complete with his work. He hopes to have the rough draft finished by the beginning of this summer and desires to have the entire project completed by the end of 2008. He has sent various excerpts of the book to church historians and other theologians, and, according to Dr. Royalty, it has been received well. Indeed, a portion of the book served as the text of a lecture that the professor gave at Oxford University last year and of a Humanities Colloquium at Wabash College which was given this past December. Certainly, The History of Heresy and the Origins of Christianity will be a welcome and pleasant addition to the published works of the Religion Department of Wabash College.

Related posts:

1. A True Foundation: On Christianity, Equality, and Tammy Bruce
2. Keeping the Faith: Religious Opportunities at Wabash
3. Meet Dr. Wilcox: An Interview with the New Religion Professor

During a recent interview with Mr. Amidon, I proposed the idea of converting the Armory into a Wabash College Athletics Hall of Fame, and he was intrigued. He concurred that there is no better building suited to use as a Hall of Fame than the Armory simply because it has such a prominent place in early Wabash athletics. Mr. Amidon stated, “We need a place on this campus where we can honor our rich athletic history. The Allen Center trophy cases are a good start, but we have so much more memorabilia that is hiding in storage closets, attics, and the Archives.”

I think it would be great to have a place where much more of this Wabash history could be displayed and come alive. The Hall of Fame would give the visiting alumni, who were once a part of these great teams or of those indelible moments while at Wabash, the opportunity to experience them again. It would also be an essential attraction for prospective students visiting campus to show Wabash College’s history and numerous athletic accomplishments. The hall would serve as a display for all of the different sports in which the College participates and would be living proof of our storied past.

The Armory has been a part of this campus and its athletics since it was dedicated on May 21, 1918. According to a Bachelor article written in October of 1916, the decision to build the Armory and Gymnasium was approved by the administration. It would house locker rooms for basketball, swimming and other sports that required facilities. The building had served this purpose well until the post-World War II era. Additions made to the Gymnasium over time led to the Armory being phased out as home of the College’s athletics. The current utilization of the Armory finds it home to the Writing Center, the radio station, and a computer lab, but the remainder of the building does nothing more than deteriorate. This appears to me to be a waste of space that could be used more effectively.

During my interview with Mr. Amidon, he conveyed an idea he had been contemplating of making the Armory the campus entrance to the football stadium. It would absolutely appeal to alumni returning for football Saturdays to make their way to the stadium through the “Wabash College Athletics Hall of Fame.” Another thought would be to move the bookstore from the basement in Sparks into this same area, which could possibly have some financial benefits with the increased traffic.

What remains, then, is the issue of what to do with the Writing Center, radio station, and the computer lab. There have been to date some open forums discussing the “strategic plan” for the college with the idea of rebuilding of the Sparks Center facility. This activity could probably incorporate these relocations.

Nevertheless, the concept of creating a Wabash College Hall of Fame to display the college’s history would certainly make the Armory an architectural landmark on campus and give the building a renewed life in addition to a functional purpose.

Related posts:

1. Civic Traditions: A Conservative’s Choice for Preserving the American Republic
2. Morris on My Mind: A Retrospective History on Morris Hall and Wabash
3. A Moment in Wabash History

Fortunately, Bellis also offered some solutions to the problem. He suggested that students observing campus service personnel lowering the flag offer their help. Another idea was that a campus group be charged with the responsibility of caring for the flag. Installing lights on the pole seemed the most practical solution to the problem because it would require little maintenance since the flag could be flown day and night. Acknowledging it was unlikely that the college would move quickly to implement these solutions, the Wabash Conservative Union pledged to raise the money to install the lights on their own accord. The image of an upside down American Flag flying high above the mall on the cover of the September issue (accompanied by a letter) sent a clear message to Wabash alumni, who quickly jumped to the Union’s aid and, apparently, to the telephone. No more than two days after the periodicals were being delivered to alumni mailboxes did the Conservative Union learn that the College was now spearheading the installation project at their own expense. Mission accomplished—or so we though.

Days after celebrating what we thought was a victory for the entire campus, we learned it was not over. On a rainy October day, students witnessed a campus service worker lowering the flag and, seemingly so he wouldn’t get wet from holding the flag against his chest, dragged it along the ground across the mall and across the street before tossing it into the back of a truck. Thinking that the end of these practices was almost here, The Phoenix thought that instead of making another big deal out of the issue, it would be better to handle the situation by taking over the responsibilities of caring for the flag at least until the installation of the lights After all, two students are better suited to fold the flag and keep it off the ground than a lone groundskeeper. The reason that I have now changed my mind and decided to write about the image students were greeted with on that rainy day, is because that was four months ago, and—aside from the fact that the flag has never been flown upside down under our watch—nothing has been accomplished.

After the leaves had fallen and while the Monon Bell Classic was approaching, we started asking where the lights were and why we were still putting the flag up and taking it down every day. Brandon Stewart, then Editor-In-Chief, contacted campus services. It was an issue of digging and connecting the wires was the response he received, so Stewart offered labor from The Phoenix staff. It was turned down. At the end of November, over two months after students and alumni had celebrated the coming installation of new lights, the College had yet to adhere to its promise. Again, The Phoenix offered to pay for the installation, and they were turned down once again.

It is now the end of January and we are left to wonder if the College ever plans to fulfill its pledge. Was the decision to install the lights motivated by civic responsibility after unfortunate circumstances were finally brought to light, or was it just a fast solution to douse the brush fire started by the disturbing images brought to our community and alumni? One thing is for certain, the College has not made a good faith effort to litigate the problems. If it had been left up to The Phoenix in September as originally proposed, Phoenix staff members would not still be raising and lowering the flag. Instead, an illuminated symbol of our nation would already be adorning our campus night skyline. If the College had hoped we would forget or grow apathetic, they are wrong; putting it up every morning is a stark reminder of their lack of motivation. We are happy that the College acted so swiftly in making the decision to install the lights in September, but you can rest assured we will continue “motivating” appropriate parties until the project is completed.

Related posts:

1. Fall Phoenix Issues Now Online

Now there are still going to be some faculty reading this (if they make it past the title) who will be looking for something heavy on their desks to throw at me, so let me address them directly. Put down your paperweights and look in a mirror. This is your question, not mine. I might be daring (or dumb) enough to ask it, but I’m not the one who keeps saying, like many of my colleagues, that we need more women on the faculty. If you think we need more women on the faculty, then you must have some general idea of how many women you want on the faculty. So my question is really your question. I shouldn’t even be the one asking it. You should be the ones telling me how many women you think should teach at Wabash.

My suspicion is that some of my colleagues think that Wabash should strive to have an equal number of men and women on the faculty. Why? Would that make Wabash a better school for men? That is the question we really need to answer.

Departments at any college or university often have political agendas when they hire new professors. One agenda that has shaped hiring practices at Wabash is the perceived need to have more women on the faculty. Some departments will not even bring a man to the campus interview stage in order to insure that a woman is hired. This comes dangerously close to a quota system. I think quota systems and gender preferences in hiring, even if they are unofficial and discrete, are illegal and immoral. Probably many faculty agree with me that quota systems are unfair and unethical. That is why the question of how many women should teach at Wabash never gets asked. If the faculty who want more women here were to ask this question, their quota system would be exposed. This question is implied in their hiring practices, but making it explicit would subject those practices to more scrutiny and criticism.

As far as I can tell, this unofficial quota system is driven in large part by the prevalence of feminist ideology among the faculty. Feminists typically claim that women are so victimized by male oppression that they should be given preferential employment opportunities to compensate for that oppression. I am open to thinking about this claim, but since women outnumber men on today’s campuses and are catching up with men in all professions, I think it is safe to say that women are no longer in need of preferential hiring in higher education.

I suppose a cynic might come up with another reason for our unofficial quota system. Many faculty at Wabash do not support all male education, as was made clear in the recent faculty quality of life survey. It follows that they must feel guilty about teaching here. (They should. If you accept generous payment from an institution you think is morally bankrupt, then you should feel not only guilt but also shame, but that’s another story.) Professors who feel guilty about not having women in the classroom are likely to try to assuage their guilt by hiring more women on the faculty. Psychologists call this compensatory behavior. A cynic might go even further with this analysis by suspecting that some Wabash professors think that the more women they hire on the faculty, the more likely Wabash will go co-ed. Perhaps some feminist faculty even hope that the women they hire will not like it here (perhaps they even try to hire women who are so radical in their feminist commitments that they are destined not to like it here). If there are enough unhappy women on the faculty who wish they had female students they could mentor, then the college will be forced to make them happy by becoming co-ed.

If some faculty really think this way, it would be the height of perversity—using women to promote the co-ed agenda. I hope the cynics are wrong about my colleagues. I think a more likely line of reasoning is this: Because we are all male, many professors think that we need lots of women in faculty positions in order to give students contact with professional, intelligent, and ambitious women. In other words, since Wabash students don’t experience smart girls in the classroom, at least they can have smart female professors. I think there is something to this argument, but it is also loaded with questionable assumptions. Do women faculty really compensate for a lack of women students? Do Wabash students really have fewer contacts with intelligent, ambitious girls just because they go to an all male school? Does not having girls in the classroom somehow bias Wabash students against intelligent, ambitious women? I don’t know all the answers to these questions, but they are worth asking and studying.

There is something to the argument, then, that Wabash needs good women teachers, but does it follow that we should hire faculty on the basis of gender? Since I find the question of quotas so distasteful, let me suggest that the real question we should be asking is not how many women should teach at Wabash. The real question we need to ask is this: How do we hire faculty who know how to teach men, or at least are committed to learning how to teach men. That should be the most important question in hiring new faculty. Gender considerations should be secondary to the aim of promoting excellence in the classroom. When we start with that question, we get a whole new perspective on the issue of hiring preferences for women.

If you start with the goal of hiring faculty who are passionate about teaching men, then you might end up with the conclusion that Wabash should not go out of its way to hire women. But would you end up supporting gender blind hiring, or would you, in fact, end up worrying about the number of men on the faculty? Could it be that men, in general and on average, are better at teaching and mentoring men than women?

I know that’s a controversial statement, so let’s look at all female colleges to see how they handle the role of gender in hiring. Interestingly, all women’s colleges are very open and up front about asking the converse of our question, which is, how many men should teach at an all-female school? Elizabeth Tidball has done more research on all women’s colleges than any other scholar, and one of the issues she has looked into is the question of women faculty mentoring women students. She argues that an all women’s school needs a strong presence of women on the faculty. Women students, it seems, respond better, in some situations, to women faculty as mentors than to men. She has ever tried to document this effect. An all-female college should have at least 50% female faculty.

If faculty at all-female colleges can talk about this issue, then I think the time has come for Wabash to talk about it. If women students respond best to women faculty, then is it possible that the same is true about men? Could it be that men faculty do a better job connecting with male students about their lives and loves (sports, sex, and video games, among other things) than women? Could it be, as I said above, that in general and on average, men are better at teaching and mentoring men than women? I’m not sure that the answer to that question is obvious. Indeed, I think the measure of a successful teacher in an all-male classroom is how well that teacher can respond pedagogically to men. In other words, we should focus not on the gender of the teacher but on the gender-knowledge of the teacher. Does the teacher understand the unique dynamic of the all male classroom, the unique learning patterns of men, and the unique culture of an all male school? Is the teacher committed to learning how to teach in a single sex college? Those are the questions we need to ask of new faculty. It could be that some men are not all that great at teaching men, and some women could be really, really great at it. (In fact, we have some of those women at Wabash, and we are lucky to have them.)

It could also be that, on average and in general, young men need older men as mentors and role models more than they need older women, just as Elizabeth Tidball has documented how young women need older women as mentors and role models. If so, then it follows that Wabash could not be an effective single sex college if we were to have a majority of faculty who are not sympathetic and committed to all male education. It also might follow that Wabash needs not only a majority of male faculty but also a majority of male faculty who know how to teach and mentor young men. After all, not all male faculty are interested in and passionate about teaching men.

So the real question we should be asking is: How many men should teach at Wabash? I’m not saying that we should have a new quota system for hiring men rather than women. I’m saying that whoever we hire should be committed to teaching men and to learning about how to better teach men. We should also recognize that it is possible that men, in general and on average, will be better at this than women, so we should worry a little bit more about finding the right men to teach at Wabash than simply hiring women for the sake of having more women on the faculty. Yet when we find women who want to teach here, we should count ourselves lucky and support them in every way that we can. I would prefer to have a gender blind hiring process, but as long as gender remains an issue at Wabash, and as long as many faculty worry about the numbers of each gender on the faculty, I think it is time to start asking about the role of male professors at Wabash — the kind of men we need to make our students the men they want to be.

Related posts:

1. Co-ed Never: Reflections on the Core of Wabash Traditions
2. A Healthy Wabash: A Democrat Critiques Current Trends at the College
3. The Liberal Arts, the Mission Statement, and Teacher Education at Wabash