Wabash Conservative Union

Fall Phoenix Issues Now Online

Wabash Conservative Union — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 01:36:32 +0000

The issues of The Phoenix from this last semester are now online!

First, in our September issue, we welcome the Class of 2015 to Wabash College. As the freshmen are no doubt are realizing, the rhetoric of admissions and orientation has given way to the dull task of work and thought. In this issue several upperclassmen give their insight into how to make your Wabash experience a good one. Jeremy Wentzel ‘14 gives advice on how to spend your free time in Crawfordsville. Matt Michaloski ‘14 encourages campus involvement through the Alpha Phi Omega service fraternity. And, on a more philosophical note, Bob Cassady ‘12 admonishes against the fake virtue of niceness.

We also have some of our new brethren joining us as contributors. Isaac Taylor ‘15 discusses the Federal Reserve, while Zachary Crozier ‘15 talks about the U.S. credit rating. Rounding out the issue, Micah Chowning ‘14 reflects on 9/11 and Zachary Rohrbach ‘12 provides a recap for the recent economics debate on campus between Dr. Webb and Dr. Rocha.

- – -

Next, in our December issue, we raise questions concerning the current push for the college to add a gender studies requirement. Zachary Churney ‘14 summarizes the campus dialogue on the issue, and Matt Michaloski ‘14 and Ronald Allman ‘14 interview Dr. David Kubiak on the issue. Robby Dixon ‘13 and Jeremy Wentzel ‘14 also provide their both of their takes.

Also in this issue, Zachary Churney ‘14 interviews Dr. Hollander on the European Union and its economic state. Jeremy Wentzel ‘14 recounts what it means to truly be a “Wabash Man” according to Greg Castanias ’87, and Will Folsom ‘15 and Seton Goddard ‘15 reﬂect on Homecoming 2011. We also discuss the 2012 presidential race, Thanksgiving, and patriotism. Finally, we are are privileged to be joined by Dr. Alexandra Hoerl, professor of political science, who gives a primer on republican theory.

A Gender Studies Requirement?

Zachary Churney '14 — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:35:49 +0000

On Tuesday, November 15, Dr. Warren Rosenberg, along with students Reed Hepburn and Devin Kelley, delivered the 2011 Bankart Gender Talk, titled, “Either I’m the Bitch, or He’s the Bitch: Why Wabash Needs a Gender Studies Graduation Requirement.” The talk received quite the attention. The talk was held in Center Hall room 216 and by the time the presentation began, there were people practically sitting on one another, eager to hear what Dr. Rosenberg had to say in regard to an enforced gender studies requirement. The talk was a way for the feelings of many of the faculty to be expressed. The reception by the students that were there seemed to be of understanding, but not necessarily of agreement, toward all that was said. The argument made as to why Wabash, specifically, needs a gender studies requirement was based largely off the fact that we are an all-male school, and there are problems to address in the area of gender.

Dr. Rosenberg started his talk off with a very true statement, and one that probably drives this entire controversy. “I don’t know if it’s the ‘B’ word or the ‘R’ word, if it’s the ‘B’ word or the requirement, either one, it’s stimulating a lot of interest.” He went on to say how a great deal of the teaching staff here at Wabash have been discussing their courses and are trying to figure out what the “next iteration of their curriculum will be.” Something that has come up is this issue of “masculinity and gender studies” as a requirement. Dr. Rosenberg restated his feelings toward the subject in his opening statements: “I gave the first Bankart lecture in 2009 on roughly the same subject, so this will be a reiteration but with a bit of variation…I have been talking about teaching gender since 1980, when I first came to Wabash.” Believe it or not, this whole question of gender studies is not a new one, just one that seems to come up every so often. In fact, the Bankarts, who used to teach here at Wabash before retiring, had a large role in pulling gender studies onto the table for discussion during their time as professors. This time there is greater support from the teaching staff; Dr. Rosenberg is not alone in his desire to have a gender studies requirement, and there are many professors in agreement with him.

Part of Dr. Rosenberg’s argument, and a view shared by many, is that because Wabash is one of the few all-male colleges in the twenty-first century, gender needs to be taught intentionally. If Wabash is to remain all-male, it should adopt a gender studies program that is required for graduation. Dr. Rosenberg put a lot of emphasis not on female gender, but on masculinity and the problems we face as men. “Men define themselves, in essence, against women…and that’s a process that starts early. There’s a term called ‘policing,’ when gender roles are ‘policed.’” This is something even Wabash College students have faced. Rosenberg elaborated on how one of his students came to him and told him that when he was younger he enjoyed the color pink and playing games that were traditionally “girl games.” When the young man’s mother noticed this “irregular behavior” she had him get therapy. This is one of the examples Dr. Rosenberg gave to illustrate how gender has a role with Wabash students and why there is a justification for a requirement in the area of gender studies.

“Wabash defines itself by gender. We are a college for men; asking and understanding why makes sense.” Dr. Rosenberg claimed that part of his core argument is that we need to be asking ourselves why we are a college for men. Does gender have a huge role in making Wabash what it is? “If we think about the college’s mission, to think critically, act responsibly, live humanely, and lead effectively, there is actually a gender component to each of those things.” Rosenberg looked at requirements such as freshman tutorial and now EQ and asked why the study of gender is not paired into those required courses. If Wabash, as a place more or less centered on the very definition of gender, is not requiring a course focused on such a crucial area, we must ask ourselves why. “So many people are scared of the word requirement,” and this is the problem a lot of students have with a gender studies requirement. “We feel that being required to do something takes away from our masculinity, but that’s not the case. There are so many things we are required to do in our lives. We require you students to do a lot, actually.” Rosenberg argued that students are fearful of the course being a requirement for no reason.

Another issue many are facing is this fear of feminism taking over and dominating the gender study courses. Reed Hepburn ’12 addressed this issue by saying, “There’s a lot of false assumptions we are operating on here…gender is not simply masculinity [or femininity]; gender is gender. A lot of students also think that gender equates to feminism, but this is totally untrue; gender is gender…there’s also this idea that feminism equals this anti-male propaganda…this is not true either.” Hepburn elaborated on the false notions that some form of militarized feminism would take over the course. He described some of the things he has experienced personally from taking some gender studies courses and completely rejected such a notion: “We need to get past the stereotypes we have concerning masculinity, feminism, and gender studies.” Hepburn argued that by taking courses revolving around gender, he saw past the stereotypes and has now come to support the idea of Wabash requiring its students to take a gender studies course. “These classes are not being dominated by one ideology, but are simply pulling these issues onto the table for us to discuss.” Dr. Rosenberg and Reed Hepburn both argued that it is a false belief to say that one particular ideology will overshadow others within the courses.

The argument Rosenberg proposed is one that is becoming a large topic of discussion on campus and is one that will surely be debated among the student body and the faculty. Whether Wabash will or will not ever require course credit in gender studies is unclear, but it is definitely a question that should be asked. If you have any comments you would like to propose on the subject feel free to email me at editor@wabashunion.org.

College Kids and Patriotism

Matt Michaloski '14 — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:40:23 +0000

Anyone who knows me knows that I am a committed punk. I used to have very long hair. I love metal music. And I’ll often forgo the double-Windsor for the much lazier Four-in-hand method when I’m tying my tie for church. I just can’t be tamed. I think everyone my age has a little bit of this same rebellious streak, and I don’t think it’s a bad thing. Let’s face it: there are aspects of authority and of “the institution” that are unjust and need to be fought against. I’m awfully grateful, for instance, that the Founding Fathers of my country decided to be “punks” and fight against a tyrannical government. I’m glad that even before that there were Puritan “punks” who weren’t satisfied with the reforms of the Anglican Church and came to America to practice their faith freely. Sometimes there are good reasons to question the system. But there is one attitude that irks me even despite my hardcore counterculture roots, and it is an attitude that I think is both very prevalent among college students and very unfortunate. It is the idea that it has somehow become “cool” for college students to hate America.

I suppose this trend began sometime in the 1960s when students were protesting Vietnam and exploring eastern philosophy while high (I was not alive in the 60s, so I am admittedly drawing from stereotypes). Against the backdrop of all the monumental changes and problems of the twentieth century, the notion developed that there is a “man” working against the common welfare of the people and that we have the right to “stick it” to him. I can certainly respect this philosophy, and I’m not trying to say that hippies are evil. I like the Beatles, and Scooby-Doo, and all that other groovy stuff as much as the next guy. I think that this same idea of going against “the man” led us to be wary of big government and to start the fight for civil rights. But I think it’s important that we think critically about just who “the man” is, because I do not think that it’s fair to blame America for the social problems we learn about in school.

My high school environment, while a wonderful experience, was decidedly liberal. My studies would often focus on the shortcomings of capitalism and rarely on its merits. We would often touch briefly on America’s commitments to liberty and justice and focus more intently on our historical mistakes. There are consequences to this learning environment: I think our liberal academic atmosphere has conditioned students to focus disproportionately on America’s problems and not enough on her merits. The good student will see the stereotypical Americans as an obese, gun-toting cowboy who can’t name the three branches of his government because he’s too busy running over endangered species with his monster truck. Maybe I’m an exception, but most of the Americans I know do, in fact, hold themselves to a higher standard than this lovely image. I think America becomes an easy target for students’ discontent simply because we are the largest, wealthiest nation on earth and because there aren’t any alternatives that are as easy to blame. This notion is unfortunately reinforced by teachers and other students.

Many college students support European politics and culture without, in my opinion, really understanding why. I was certainly guilty of this attitude when I was younger. These alternatives seemed attractive to me simply because they went contrary to the western system that I had come to believe was anti-progressive. Many people my age act as if patriotism is an antiquated, western concept that is counter-productive to modern society. It is assumed that if I love America then I must have some irrational fear of the rest of the world, and of human progress, and health food. I am here to say that I want to work towards solving the world’s problems as much as the next guy, but that I also take pride in my country for its rich traditions and its commitment to personal liberties. My country’s history is not perfect, but I also believe that America is not the source of all the world’s inequalities and violence—neither is capitalism. To borrow from my good friend, Billy Joel, “We didn’t start the fire. It was always burning since the world’s been turning.”

I’d like to conclude by complementing Wabash for not practicing the anti-patriotism that is expected by today’s college. I think that our inclinations towards tradition and critical thinking empower the Wabash man to separate his analysis of politics and history from his respect for our great nation. This is basically what I’m arguing for: we can be skeptical, critical thinkers and still be patriots.

A Song of Chapel Sing: On Freshman Homecoming 2011

Will Folsom '15 — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:39:03 +0000

Homecoming weekend. It’s exciting, it’s stressful, and like just about everything at Wabash, it’s teeming with tradition. For Alumni and many upperclassmen, Homecoming weekend lasts about 72 hours, from Chapel Sing to whenever the victory celebrations cease Saturday night (more likely Sunday morning). For us freshmen however, preparation for some aspects of Homecoming began weeks in advance. It all began with Chapel Sing. We Independents were approached by some older Independents who were asking for volunteers to participate in Chapel Sing. Eighteen of us volunteered to represent our fellow Independents and committed to attending mandatory practices. Why? Who knows? Some of us came because we were bored and thought it sounded like it might be fun. Some of us came because we felt ashamed not to. Many of us came because as Wabash Men, we knew it was the right thing to do.

As two first generation Wabash guys from Nebraska and Wisconsin, we didn’t really know how big a deal Chapel Sing was and what it was really like. We wouldn’t really know that until we walked off the mall six weeks later. But over those six weeks, we eighteen Independents practiced behind Sparks from 9:00 to 10:00 PM, five nights a week. It started off slowly as we learned the song, but it eventually progressed into marches and mock Chapel Sing line-ups, complete with the non-stop singing, red cards, screaming, and cigar smoke. It was tough, but at those tense moments when you had three guys all screaming in your face about their latest romantic encounter with your mother, three things kept you going: One, your zeal for Wabash (Of course!). Two, your fellow G.D.I.s. Three, the knowledge that some poor, sad sack pledge had it five times worse than you…and at 6 A.M.

Finally, the day of Chapel Sing arrived, and it couldn’t have been a more perfect day. It was sunny and the temperature was neither too hot nor too cold. After our respective tutorial classes, we met behind Sparks one last time. The older guys were all there to wish us luck. We put our hands together and, at the count of three, yelled “GDI!” Rudy, our spunky and animated leader, led us out onto the mall single-file. It was great seeing all of those people, students, faculty, and members of the community out there cheering everyone on. It was also nerve-wracking. We could feel the sweat running down our sides and our legs out of pure nervousness. Many of us knew members of the Sphinx Club and knew that they were nice guys, but on that morning, they seemed more like tigers in red and white stripes, ready to pounce on us black-and-white-clad sheep.

When Tyler Wade got up on his ladder and commenced the Sing, the resulting sound was more reminiscent of a dying animal than “Old Wabash”. Some groups immediately started off fast while others started more slowly. It didn’t take long for each of us to set our own pace. The entire time, we were just praying that we wouldn’t draw attention to ourselves. Staying focused was another struggle. Some of us got lucky and made it through, but the Sphinx Club members seem to have an innate ability to smell fear, and once they were able to find a target, they were damn good at messing you up.

When we finally got the okay to stop singing, it was one of the greatest senses of relief we had ever known. It was over. Once we were able to breathe at a normal rate and swallow our saliva in the typical fashion, it was even better. There was no more yelling. No more red cards. No more nightly practices. We were finished. We independents did a respectable job at the end of the day. We had one guy who couldn’t make it because he had a bad cold, so we had 17 guys, and we counted three Ws. Your humble authors were fortunate, and neither of us got Ws, but some of our good friends weren’t so lucky. Still, the Independent upperclassmen told us how proud they were of us regardless of whether or not we got a W.

Chapel Sing was only the beginning, however, and almost immediately we started our preparations for painting the bench and building our float. During the past several weeks, we had gone around all of the independent living units asking for donations to fund paint and float materials, and by Thursday night, we had most of the materials that we needed. So we split up into two groups, one to paint, and one to start on the float. Almost all of the guys who participated in Chapel Sing helped with the bench and float, but the cool thing was that countless other independents also showed up, and without their help on Thursday and Friday nights, we wouldn’t have been able to get done in time.

Painting the bench went well for the most part. We did a simple red and white color scheme with the phrase “GDI Till I Die” on the front. Over the next couple of days, we would get numerous positive comments, especially from fraternity guys, on how cool and creative our slogan and paint job was. The only mishap during the night was a funny coincidence. Who would have thought that on the same night the Independents were painting the senior bench, there would be a break out from the local insane asylum, and that those escaped patients would pelt eggs and balloons at us, all while exposing themselves? No serious harm was done, however. The escaped mental patients had pathetic aim.

The following night, we shifted our focus to our float, banner, and fire chant. For our chant, we decided on a rendition of Wiz Khalifa’s “Black and Yellow.” We dubbed it “White and Scarlet,” and it became an instant hit at fire chant. When we performed our chant, donning patriotic paraphernalia and bearing an American flag, everyone cheered us on, shouting encouraging things like, “What an awesome chant!” and “Go independents, you guys rock!” The event was really what ended up defining Wabash life for everyone on campus: camaraderie, respect, and good, old-fashioned fun. It was a rewarding experience.

For our float, we built medieval stockades which included Kenyon fans (purple clothing stuffed with copies of The Bachelor) in them and a giant 18-feet-tall “Executioner Wally,” which, thanks to a collaborative effort, we free-hand drew, painted, cut out, and constructed over the course of the night. Dozens of freshman independents descended on Martindale to help us out. The older guys were also there supervising us. Then the language interns came to hang out. Apparently, they heard about how cool our fire chant was. It was a lot of fun, not only seeing our project come together, but also to see everyone having a great time listening to music, eating pizza, and hanging out.

A few guys had to pull all-nighters, but we finally got our float done in time to be judged Saturday morning. Our banner was also done, but we had to make one more last-minute run to Walmart to buy some things for our homecoming queen. Upon heading down to the local Walmart for what was likely the twenty-seventh time, we (and Seton Goddard’s Visa card) were welcomed with open arms by the cordial host of greeters. Few things are as exciting as a hearty Crawfordsville “Welcome to Walmart!” When we arrived at the stadium before halftime, the fraternities’ banners and queens impressed us. Some of them had put a lot more time and effort into their banners. FIJI’s was particularly impressive. Our banner was based on the Don’t Tread on Me flag, except our snake was red and was devouring a lord. As the two designers of the banner, and as members of the Wabash Conservative Union, we thought it was pretty clever. If any future generations of freshmen read this, we would like to bequeath some advice to them concerning homecoming queens. A) When picking between a football player and a swimmer for your homecoming queen, pick the swimmer. B) It’s never a good idea for your queen to flash the judges, especially when there are feminists among them.

Overall, homecoming was great to be a part of. Floats and football games are a staple of most college homecomings; however, the great thing about Wabash College is that we take something like homecoming and add our own traditions to it. Chapel Sing, painting the Senior Bench and the homecoming “queen” contest are all unique to Wabash. Wabash Men have a passion for tradition. We don’t walk under the arch for fear of terrible things to come, we succumb to participation in Chapel Sing, and we pull all-nighters painting the Senior Bench, all in the name of one thing: Wabash tradition. Dean Raters reminded us after Chapel Sing that up until just a few years ago, Independents didn’t participate in Chapel Sing and that he was proud to see Independents volunteering to participate. He said that, “Chapel Sing is not a Fraternity thing. It’s not even a Sphinx Club thing. It’s a Wabash thing.” Now, it’s understood that a little friendly rivalry is healthy and that a little heckling never killed anyone, but even though we compete during homecoming as Independents or as Betas or as FIJIs, we should remember that we are Wabash men first and foremost and that these great traditions belong to all of us.

The Troubles of the European Union: An Interview with Dr. Hollander

Zachary Churney '14 — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:36:13 +0000

The other day I was listening to National Public Radio (I know, ironic) and, as I am both a political science and German major, I could not help but listen to the ever-growing concern about the European Union. For those of you who might not know, which I am not even sure is possible unless you live in a cave, there is a crisis on the other side of the pond and its name is debt. It’s odd how that seems to be a common problem in the world today.

A Reuters report claims that by the end of this year, Greece’s debt will be 162 percent of its total economic output. In other words, Greece is nearing a crisis and, unfortunately, it is not the only EU member facing such a problem. Nations such as Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain are also feeling the pull from the 2008 recession, but not to the extent that Greece is. German Prime Minister Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have had a lot to discuss as both Germany and France are playing hero in the present crisis. Germany is doing well, excluding the population issue, and has done quite a bit thus far in helping other members of the European Union. The question I as well as others are asking is this: What is to happen now with Germany, France, Greece, and the rest of the European Union with the issue of economic debt and uncertainty looming over Europe?

One possibility for Germany is—prepare yourself—leaving the European Union, getting rid of the Euro, and readopting the Deutsche Mark. German publications such as Handelsblatt and Der Spiegel have been preaching doubt in the sustainability of the Euro and are actually predicting the Mark to take over for the Euro in Germany. I wanted to ask someone who has taken this into consideration, so I interviewed Dr. Ethan Hollander, a Doctor of Political Science and professor here at Wabash.* The answer he gave me to this question was so straightforward I had to put it in here. Dr. Hollander’s reply was this: “Let me put it this way. What would you do if you had a friend who racked up huge debts at the Cactus and now wanted you to help him out? All those nights he was out partying, you were home, doing what you [were] supposed to do, saving money and eating at Sparks.

“On the one hand, the right thing to do is to help your friend out—he is, after all, your friend….and he promises that he’s learned from his mistakes, that he’ll pay you back, that he won’t do it again. But you’ve given him money before, and your friends have too, and you saw what he did with it, and frankly, you don’t really believe him. You don’t want to lose his friendship, to sever ties or to kick him out of the house. And you sincerely wish him well. But you also can’t afford to bankroll his economic security when yours is also in question. And so you’re about ready to call it a loss and to go your own way. Well, which would you do? I can’t [say] which is the right choice, but I can assure you that neither is really good.” This is a very true statement. On one hand Germany could look out for itself and pull away from the Union, but what would that do to other nations who have invested so much and have built their infrastructure around the unionization of itself and other nations? If Germany were to do what is best for itself, it would readopt the Mark and take a position similar to the one the U.K. has taken. However, if Germany intends to fight for European stability and economic unity in Europe, it would remain a member of the European Union.

One solution to this problem is a bailout created by France and Germany. The feelings from French and German citizens about having to bail out Greek and other European markets is not positive. Dr. Hollander explained the situation well: “…Germany and France face a terrible dilemma…As part of EU integration, the rich (some would say ‘responsible’) countries of Europe share an economy with the poor (‘irresponsible’) countries of Europe—they trade with one another, they share a currency, they cooperate and they build things together. As a result, countries like Germany and France will suffer if countries like Greece (not to mention Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain) go bankrupt. In a way, their only choice is to help. But as you might imagine, this isn’t very popular with the citizens of Germany and France, who, quite reasonably, don’t understand why they should pay for the mistakes of other countries. You see, Germany and France don’t typically spend money they don’t have—and so if they were to give money to Greece to pay Greece’s debts, the people of Germany and France would have to pay for it in the form of higher taxes. Nobody likes paying taxes. But taxes are particularly irksome when they are raised to pay for someone else’s mistakes!”

This is such a true statement and it is difficult to really say whether France and Germany should continue to bail out other nations. In my opinion, this could be a very slippery slope Germany and France are embarking on. Let’s say that Germany and France bail Greece out and all is well. However, what about the multiple other nations that are facing economic crises? If Italy, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain need help, will France and Germany come to their rescue? If France and Germany continue to help out other nations by the hands of their own economies, what will the outcome be? Playing banker could be detrimental to France and Germany, especially with the world market being so fragile.

So, what exactly can the United States learn from Europe? Perhaps the United States’ government should learn what Greece’s has: you should not amass a debt exceeding the economic output. Greece faced the issue of an economy in recession, and according to Dr. Hollander: “Greece’s solution to this problem was to spend money it didn’t have, a wonderfully sound public policy in the short term—and one that many countries, including the U.S., are starting to follow. But not something that works particularly well in the long term when the people who lent you the money—the money that you spent on things that you now can’t afford—return and want their money back. Many a U.S. homeowner is very familiar with this situation.”

Looking at Greece’s example, the United States should definitely be making long-term decisions instead of these very shortly lived programs that are costing billions and even into the trillions of dollars. Can future generations handle the amount that we are spending right now? Greece is incredibly small in comparison to the United States, but even to economic giants such as Germany and France, the debt it has created is a large problem. If the comparatively small debt Greece has produced has become such a large problem in the eyes of the world, what will the debt of the United States look like when it finally gets to that point? The great debate in 2012 will be about the economy. Let’s be completely honest, the economy will be the foremost argument in the Presidential race.

If the question is what we can learn from Europe’s current crisis, then the straightforward answer is to stop spending money like a teenaged girl who just got her first credit card. Although this is a harsh reality, fiscal conservatism is proving to be the logical approach to the economy and even Democrats are beginning to agree. I have no doubt that Germany and France will pull Greece out of its economic crisis, but will there always be a Germany or a France to bail out less fortunate nations? In our case, probably not.

*A special thanks to Dr. Hollander for his continuing support for the Conservative Union and productive discourse. We appreciate all he has done and is doing for our organization and other organizations on campus.

Out of Touch: Why Gender Studies Should Not Be Required

Jeremy Wentzel '14 — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:33:49 +0000

“Either he’s the Bitch, or I’m the Bitch.” It’s a phrase that has certainly made its way around campus. Attributed to Mr. Devin Kelly ’12, the phrase was a discussion point in his senior seminar English course on gender, and has become the catch phrase for the gender studies requirement discussion on campus. The notion is that the term “bitch” has a negative female connotation that men seemingly flee from. This helped frame the discussion of why Wabash men should be required to look into issues and definitions of gender and identity.

After Dr. Warren Rosenberg’s talk on Why Wabash Needs a Gender Studies Requirement, the question still remained. In a packed Center Hall 216, students were asked to hear the case, and then discuss the implications and voice questions. The talk essentially examined why gender studies is a good thing, and should be included in the curriculum. However, it neglected to entertain reasoning on why gender studies should be compulsory for all Wabash men, besides the fact that Wabash is an all-male college that does not explore the subject enough. The talk also leaves open the question of possible implementation strategies for such a requirement.

While Wabash is a college that clearly changes lives, we must examine whether this happens in the classroom or whether it is a result of critical thinking outside the classroom. I would argue the latter. Advocates for this requirement claim that there would not be an inherent bias pressed upon students, yet they also claim that there would be a degree of bias within the readings. A large point that was discussed at this talk was the fact that all Wabash professors have an agenda to bring to the table. Certain professors will have certain perspectives that shape their approach in classes. However, the question that remains is which perspectives will be presented within the gender studies requirement, and which will be discussed with less prevalence.

In the current system Wabash men can choose certain courses to take, which professors they want, and what area of exploration they feel is necessary. They can choose a class which they feel tackles the issue of gender most eloquently. In fact, there are 27 courses to choose from that can go toward the current gender studies concentration at the college. In a gender studies requirement, this is not the case. Students may be forced to look at a specific agenda when selecting courses: one in which the end goal is to break down traditional gender barriers.

An angry gender studies advocate might ask, “Why would you not want to break down traditional gender barriers and roles?” The response is simple: I would like to see traditional gender roles less traditional. I do think more women should work and be breadwinners in the family, and perhaps more men stay at home. I do think that men should not be afraid to express themselves, and not be afraid to be “the bitch.” I might even think that we should reject the notion of “the bitch” altogether! This line of thinking reflects the opinion of hundreds of other Wabash men who have not taken a gender studies course. In fact, our society as a whole is more gender conscious than they were a century, half century, decade, or perhaps even 5 years ago.

Wabash men are a step above. This student body has already explored or is currently exploring their gender and identity on their own time (isn’t the Enduring Questions course meant to help freshmen explore identity and gender?). We do not need another required course to replace or ‘enhance’ our personal thoughts or actions in regards to gender—especially in a field of study that has become prominent only recently! In a gender-conscious world, most Wabash men already have a progressive mindset when it comes to gender and sexuality. This is why so many Wabash men find themselves taking one or more of the college’s 27 gender courses that already exist. Yet, even if a Wabash man does not take a course on gender, it is completely out of touch to think that he is unfit or will not explore his identity outside the classroom.

Therefore, why is it so important for advocates to push a gender studies graduation requirement into the Wabash curriculum? While different advocates have different positions on the issue, it is worth asking the following questions. Why is it presumed that Wabash College has been long overdue for a gender studies requirement? Is this an alternative route to channel the over-and-done-with coeducational debate? If gender studies at Wabash College are strictly for Wabash men to explore gender, why does it have to be more than an elective course or area of concentration? With these questions in mind, it is necessary to compare the structural models of C&T, Enduring Questions, and Freshman Tutorial to a proposed gender studies requirement. If the college were to implement a gender studies requirement, it would legitimize the course to the level of EQ or Freshmen Tutorial. A required gender studies course would be a semester, as are the current required courses. Are we prepared to compare the legitimacy of a gender studies course to that of Freshmen Tutorial, Enduring Questions, or the late C&T (may God bless it)? These questions are critical, but also crucial when determining the roots of gender studies.

The “Gender Studies is about Wabash men exploring their own gender” reasoning only goes so far when there is a required course that explores identity and gender, Enduring Questions. In addition, 27 other elective courses address the same subject. Therefore, Wabash men want to know why the current modes of exploration are not enough, and what other agenda is at work in this push for compulsory gender studies that would affect all Wabash diplomas, moving forward.

More importantly is the argument that Wabash men need a semester of gender studies to assist them in the real world and life moving forward. Many students would be offended to know that there is a perception that most Wabash men have been over-compensated with masculinity during their time at the college. This then translates to the idea that, as a college, we should sensitize these brute men and teach them how to feel confident and comfortable with their gender and with other genders. The implied end result is that if we don’t do this then bad things could happen to them if they make such blunders in the future.

The reoccurring theme of feminism has been prevalent in this counter-argument. It is completely understandable that feminism is overused in the argument against gender studies. Yet, it is completely false for gender studies advocates to pride themselves on a class requirement that is not feminist. The issues will come up and the result will be feminist readings. Perhaps men will be able to examine themselves, and become more comfortable with their own masculine side as a result of the proposed requirement. However, the core ideology is that students can choose to take a course on this matter now (and many Wabash men do), as opposed to being corralled into requirement distributions with high demand (what will most likely happen if the college decides to make this a requirement).

Mr. Reed Hepburn ’12 formed a clear argument around why a seminar-style gender studies classroom setting is the right place for this discussion. A senior seminar has limited occupants, as well as advanced coursework and in depth discourse. For Mr. Hepburn and his fellow classmates, the discussion has been fruitful. He claimed there has even been debate against feminist agendas at times. However, this would be completely out of the realm of possibility with a new gender studies requirement. 900 students being forced to take a course that deals with gender over their four years here will simply become a logistical nightmare. The current 27 courses (and their current rate of offering) will not be enough to accommodate all Wabash men in a small seminar class size of less than 15. Therefore, we would be asking faculty to reteach these courses in higher frequency, leading to a possible reduction in other distribution courses being taught. A small number of professors wanting to reteach these courses more frequently will be in limited departments at this college, and will have a greater stake in wanting to expand gender studies at the college.

In addition, there would need to be additional courses developed to accommodate the surge in students taking the course. What might this new coursework be composed of? Clearly, it would most likely be lecture format as opposed to discussion format to accommodate larger numbers of students taking the course to fulfill a distribution. I would argue that the feminist and/or LGBT approach would be a popular choice to begin structuring new courses with. Again, these courses would interfere with Wabash men discovering what sexuality or gender actually means to them personally through outside-the-classroom critical thinking. In addition, is it not true that we discover what we need to know in regards to sexuality, gender and identity from personal relationships with family, friends, and coworkers?

In final reflection, Wabash College does not need a gender studies requirement. It’s very clear that an all-male student body is one of the primary factors in driving the push for compulsory gender studies. Perhaps it’s a legitimate factor, but why is it a driving factor? In addition, this requirement assumes that Wabash men exploring gender, identity, and sexuality on their own time in their own lives is not enough. Why is critical personal reflection and development not enough? Lastly, it will be a logistical nightmare to implement. In the end, all departments in the college will most likely not have a stake in the gender courses being taught, unlike the case of Freshmen Tutorial or Enduring Questions. As a college, we need to discuss the cost-benefit of a student taking a whole semester to bypass another valuable course (perhaps for their major or area of interest), in return for fulfilling this requirement. Wabash College is a place to change lives. Personal, social, and identity development should be attributed to Wabash men thinking critically about themselves. A compulsory gender studies course should not interfere with this process.

The Wimpification of Modern Academics: Dr. Kubiak’s Response to Gender Feminism

Matt Michaloski '14 — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:31:52 +0000

It was the morning of November 15^th. The gender issues committee was sponsoring a presentation and light lunch that day. They planned to pitch their proposal for a new course requirement to the student body and clear up any misconceptions about the nature of their mission. The talk was titled: “‘Either I’m the Bitch, or He’s the Bitch’: Why Wabash Needs a Gender Studies Graduation Requirement.” I was skimming through my emails that morning and quickly deleting the bulk of them when a campus-wide invitation to the event caught my eye. I read the email and decided to write down the time and room number for the talk. The offer of lunch was attractive. I found my pledge brother and fellow WCU member, Ron Allman, and proposed that we attend the talk together. He quickly agreed. The offer of lunch was attractive. Besides, we figured, we might learn something interesting about the gender studies debate and how it will affect us.

We arrived early and ate lunch before the talk began. It was not disappointing. There were sandwiches from Johnny Provolone’s and A&W root beer, which is far superior to Barq’s, the preferred root beer provided by most campus organizations when they want to entice students to participate. It ended up being an above average incentive. Ron agreed. We sat down and turned our attention to the speakers, which included Dr. Warren Rosenberg, senior Devin Kelley, and senior Reed Hepburn. The speakers mounted an interesting defense for instituting gender studies, which had been largely snickered at by myself and fellow classmates upon first hearing about the proposition.

Gaining interest in the topic, Ron and I decided to ask Dr. David P, Kubiak if he would be willing to share his views on the debate. We are both students in his Classics course, “Topics in Masculinity,” which has been offered this semester and have had the pleasure of hearing Dr. Kubiak express his views on feminism, academia, traditional values, and masculinity in all its aspects. He agreed to meet with us and did not disappoint.

Wabash Conservative Union: One of the major messages that the gender studies advocates tried to get across at the talk was that the field of gender studies is more than just feminist propaganda. Are they justified in saying that the proposed gender studies course will not devolve into feminist indoctrination?

Dr. David Kubiak: The gender feminists have their own catechism. It’s a way of life. For them to impose it on students is like me going in and trying to convert my students to Catholicism. And I think they are being a bit disingenuous in claiming ideological neutrality. Gender Studies are a manifestation of academic gender feminism and that is that. If you question faculty closely enough this will emerge, and particularly in what is termed masculinity studies. All the leaders of the group – people like Harry Brod – will say that their foundation is in academic feminism, and it is through that lens they are proposing to look at men. So my colleagues may talk about ideological neutrality, and perhaps in their own minds they are being honest. But it’s not going to come out that way. When you examine their own intellectual commitments it is academic feminism that they are going to teach. Most of the faculty are indifferent to the issue. The only ones who really get excited about it are the ones who are ideologically wedded to academic feminist approaches. As I said, to me it’s a religion. And I don’t think we should be shoving any religion down students’ throats.

WCU: What threat does the academic feminists’ way of thinking pose to masculinity and traditional values?

DK: It’s just not the real world. I don’t think it’s preparing you for the real world, so that’s one danger. My sister is a very successful advertising executive, and when I tell her some of the things that are proposed at our gender panels she laughs out loud. And I do think that despite rhetoric to the contrary there is a deep-seated misandry involved here: a dislike, a distaste for regular guys, the salt of the earth types that are the core of Wabash College. The more one attacks that kind of man the more one attacks the essence of the College. So ultimately I think the gender feminist influence is not desirable as a College-wide influence. Individual instructors can teach whatever they want in their own classrooms once you hire them. That is academic freedom. What feminist ideologues do in their own classes I have no desire to interfere with, but when they start proposing that this perspective should be imposed on all the

WCU: The gender studies talk focused largely on a sentence brought up by senior tight end, Devin Kelley, during a classroom discussion on masculinity when he brought up his perspective as an athlete. He described his mindset before making a play: “Either I’m the bitch or he’s the bitch.” Is this a good reflection of masculine values? Is there danger in simplifying masculinity in a way that it only represents conflict?

DK: First, I don’t think in this context the word “bitch” has any kind of literal meaning; it’s apparently athletic vernacular to describe who wins and who loses in a contest. (I would compare the expression “—- you”, which has nothing much to do with sexual intercourse.) From the Greeks on athletics involves winners and losers, and it’s not pleasant to be the loser, as Pindar tells us. It is one of the delusions of gender feminism that we can live in a world where everybody is a winner. That’s not the way life is. When conflict is stylized as it is in athletic contexts, I can see how the desire for dominance would be verbalized in various ways, and I’m not at all sure any of us has the right to invade the verbal privacy of our athletes or any other of our students. “Bitch” is not a word any student would use in conversation with me; that’s all I have the right to demand about it, I think. To make a student stand up and confess publicly his gender feminist transgressions, as I gather happened at that panel, is just too close to a Maoist show trial for me.

WCU: If gender studies were to become a required course, what would be a more constructive approach to the topic than the gender feminist perspective? What should we study?

DK: If you study literature you have to talk about men and women. Originally I thought that Gender Studies proposed simply to do that, but as I said I quickly discovered that what was really meant was academic feminist studies. The older I get I become much more committed to the idea of naïve readings of literature. Theory has been the death of the appreciation of art and literature among students today. They have no aesthetic appreciation of art. That is chiefly due to the triumph of various kinds of academic theory. To bring to bear on Henry James or Homer a massive ideological construct is not helpful. That is what angers me most about gender feminism and masculinity studies, I think. They are no friends of art.

WCU: You have said that gender studies is highly academic and detached from reality. Do you believe that studying it will have few applications to real life? Could it even have drawbacks?

DK: I don’t think women are interested in wimps. You go out into the real world and you interact with women, you become attracted to and court a woman perhaps. I don’t think they are interested in these wimpy, neutralized guys that gender feminists are trying to create: men who are not committed to constructive struggle and conflict and fighting for a cause and coming out the winner. I think these are deep-seated human, even biological, values, and it is hybristic of gender feminism to think that they can suddenly be erased from human experience.

Our talk with Dr. Kubiak was enlightening. Clearly he is opposed to the gender studies course being required, and he clearly encourages us to be on guard against the invasion of academic feminism in the classroom. Could gender studies give us a constructive look at ourselves and our school? Or are our fears justified? There was much to ponder as Ron and I strolled quietly across the mall back to our house.

Be a Thankful Turkey

Matt Michaloski '14 — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:16:02 +0000

Thanksgiving happened recently, and it was an awfully good day for me! I’d spent an entire year storing up things to be thankful for, and frankly I’m not sure I could have dammed the tides of my thankfulness very much longer. When the morning finally arrived and my alarm went off promptly at 7:30am, I sprang from my bed and began listing all the things I had to be thankful for. The list was long and sincere, and every word I spoke caused me to take another mental draught of the sweet, intoxicating liquor that is gratitude. By dinnertime it had completely overcome me, and I was whirling around carousing in a thankful stupor. My thank-yous were becoming so frequent by the second course that I had difficulty chewing my turkey, which incidentally is something I was incredibly thankful for. Yes, I was thankful for a million different things. The list included many things—from the greater blessings like my family and friends, to questionable blessings like my pledge brothers, right down to the simple things—the third piece of pumpkin pie and the gravy stains on my sweater vest. It was a gracious day, and now all I’ll have to look forward to is Christmas.

This account of my day is exaggerated—but only moderately. I love Thanksgiving, and it is a holiday that we ought to hold in high esteem. Unfortunately, though, it does not receive the credit it is due. How many folks do you see getting genuinely excited about Thanksgiving? There is often plenty of criticism around December-time that Christmas has become over-commercialized and that the true spirit of Christmas gets buried under a pile of wrapping paper. I think the same evil forces are at work with Thanksgiving. It is easy to enjoy the pies, and hams, and turkey, and football, and to forget the underlying values of Thanksgiving—gratitude and honoring the legacy of our forefathers to whom we owe a massive debt.

Evidence of this under-appreciation can be seen all around us in stores and shopping centers shortly after Halloween. I visited the drugstore earlier this past November to pick up a prescription, about one week after Halloween, and those villains had nutcrackers for sale already. This is not a rare find: the Christmas shopping season is a voracious beast that respects no boundaries or social courtesies. Together with the well-timed Halloween, it schemes to annually overshadow Thanksgiving and distract us from the merits of a holiday that is genuinely valuable despite the fact that you don’t get presents. Case in point, I believe (and lament) that Turkey Day is becoming lost in the shadow of more flashy holidays[1] and treated as a free dinner that you pay off with a one minute “I’m thankful for…” speech. Just as the Christmas season is (ideally) a month-long celebration of the values of giving complete with decorations and carols that build excitement and remind us all month long of the coming holiday, so should Thanksgiving be given its due season to build anticipation and give us adequate time to reflect on what we are thankful for.

I don’t mean to preach[2], but I believe it is extremely important to be grateful for all the blessings in life. So many of the things we enjoy are given to us and are only ours as the result of another’s sacrifice: We have our country and our freedom which is the gift of a large collection of individuals ranging from our nation’s forefathers to its veterans and its great thinkers throughout its history. We have the privilege of attending Wabash College, which was built upon and preserved by the work of many individuals. Our teachers, preachers, coaches, and parents have taught us valuable lessons and raised us with enough sense to get into this wonderful school. We owe particularly special thanks to our parents for our upbringing and bringing us into this charming world. I believe that we are a lot more dependent on our past, our communities, and fate’s guiding hand than we regularly admit. We’ve racked up a massive debt for all these wonderful things, and the only thing we’ve really got to pay it with is gratitude.

If you’re still reading at this point, and God bless you if you are, then I would like to issue this challenge to you: take a minute or two to reflect on all your manifold blessings and say a little heartfelt thank you. And take caution that you don’t take life’s turkeys for granted. Just as Santa smiles when folks reflect on the true meaning of Christmas, so must the pilgrims smile up in heaven when they witness genuine thankfulness.

[1] Be it known that I do not dislike Halloween and Christmas. They are wonderful holidays. I would also argue that Thanksgiving is a wonderful holiday too.

[2] Truthfully, I do.

How Many Bureaucrats Does it Take to Put Up a Christmas Tree?

Can __ Win? – Addressing media bias in the presidential elections

Nick Freeman '15 — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:13:44 +0000

“Can ______ become the next President of the United States?” “_____ doesn’t have a chance.” ”Let us talk instead about our big two frontrunners!” This is common not only from our voices, but from the media on both sides. The media’s habit of picking frontrunners hurts not only the diversity of the field of candidates, but also discourages primary voters from voting for whom they think is right to become the next President of the United States. In order to prove this, we shall explore first what exactly being a “frontrunner” means. Next we will address how this hurts our choices as voters in primaries, and finally what can the common voter do to curb this media bias and encourage thoughtful and critical thinking when deciding the leader of the free world.

A frontrunner as defined by Merriam-Webster is “a leading contestant in or as if in a rivalry or competition.” This term is traditionally used late in primary seasons when it becomes abundantly clear who has a chance to win. Now, not one vote has yet been cast in this election, so why is the media using this term? The answer is quite simple: the media wants to pick our candidate before we can read into everyone and decide for ourselves who should lead. This from the New York Times illustrates this best: “Measured by national polling, media attention and millions in the bank, the Republican field appears to have come down to a bout between two heavyweights: Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, vs. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas.” This was published Oct 10 2011, according to the October 10^th Gallup Poll it has Romney with 20% and Perry with 15%, but there is no mention of Herman Cain, who in this Gallup poll had 18% of the vote. Based upon this it is clear that there is no frontrunner and we should not be picking the national candidate until after we begin going to the polls, which at this point is still 2 months out.

This frontrunner idea has also been proven false by the huge gains by Herman Cain after winning the Florida straw poll with a whopping 33.5% of the vote, and yet the media at first tried to spin this win as a fluke, which has since been proven otherwise. This utter belligerence is only the first of many examples: the total exclusion of Ron Paul, the implication of “hopeless” campaigns of the “bottom” runners, and that candidates have to “win” quick or they are done.

Now this frame of mind is not healthy. It is detrimental when we put on the blinders and say: “Nope, only he can win, no one else has a chance,” especially when perfectly good candidates are just as popular as the “frontrunner.” When someone is labeled a frontrunner it puts out a negative mindset that makes the actual prospects of a presidential field look as if we have to “settle” for less than stellar folk just because he is the anointed “frontrunner.” Settling for less when you haven’t even voted is such a tragedy that we may actually miss the diamond in the rough. As Americans our heritage is being able to make something greater out of ourselves, and it is actions like this that betray this value. For if you anoint a frontrunner before a single vote is cast, it creates that sense of hopelessness that can plague the hopes and dreams of not only the current candidates, but also people as a whole. This hopelessness can and will lead to a loss of American exceptionalism, the driving force that allows you to be something greater than you were told you could become. Such a loss would truly tarnish if not remove the American Dream from the minds of future Americans.

Now what can you do to combat this bias? There are three crucial things everyday Americans can do to combat this: First, do your own research. Pick someone you like, not who Chris Chrisite likes, and do not believe everything pundits say about candidates. Take all their comments with a grain of salt. Doing your own research is very easy to do. The internet is nearly perfect for this: do a Google search, read from each candidate’s website, figure out for yourself whom you would like to see most in the Oval Office of the White House. This will take away part of the media’s hold on how you think and will enable you to make choices that you decided were correct. The second point builds on the first: use your own mind when deciding who to vote for in the primaries. It’s your vote. Make it count! Voting based on your beliefs will show the glory of the American system of government, how the power flows down from “we, the people,” who in our interest decide who our representatives are.

The third by this point will be natural because when you have your own opinions based on your weighing of the facts, you will be able to catch when pundits are trying the frontrunner game. When the pundits hold less power over you their power weakens, as it does with every other American out there who does the same. Over time they will be rebuffed and the media in its staggering loss of power will shift back to becoming a source for fact, not partisan bias. “Frontrunners” would be a word rarely seen during election cycles, and future Americans can be assured that the American dream lives on and is still going strong.

The Failure of Gender Studies

Robby Dixon '13 — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:11:41 +0000

Lately, there has been a lot of stir at Wabash over proposed changes in the curriculum of the college. One of the hottest topics has been whether Wabash students should be required to take a class in what is called “gender studies”. Is there something about Wabash or something about education in general that makes studying gender necessary for liberally educated men?

It’s easy to see that while requiring students to take classes in it may be a separate question, thinking about it in some way is necessary. The purpose of Wabash College is to educate men. That has been true ever since the founding of the College. However, the meaning of that fact has changed. When Wabash was founded, that the students were exclusively men was not a unique feature. In fact, it was a feature that was shared by every college in America at the time. Now, however, it is not only almost unique, it is a very deliberate, self-conscious part of Wabash’s identity. The all-male student body is one of Wabash’s constitutive, self-defining characteristics, one of the things that separate us from other schools. We as a community define ourselves by gender (among other things). Hence, forming a self-definition that is reflective and meaningful requires finding a way of thinking about gender that is relevant to Wabash.

The next question, then, is: what is gender in the first place? This is where we start to see some of the complications that make gender studies such a polarizing issue, for there is no consensus even on the first fundamental question. One of the first points to come up is always whether gender is socially and individually constructed and, as such, endlessly pliable, or whether it is a fact of nature that cannot be changed. Those who take the former position are suspected of being hubristic, godless, secularist Frankensteins who want to subvert, deconstruct, and reinvent human nature. This, of course, is simply an instantiation of the familiar nature vs. nurture debate in psychology, but psychologists themselves have long abandoned treating that question as a simple binary. People’s experiences and the society they live in interact in complex ways with their genetics, and trying to separate the two rigidly with artificial walls—or clinging, as many people do in the area of gender, to a sharp distinction between the biological and the mental—is not only unspiritual but unscientific. Those who get too riled up, then, when they see people “confusing” gender and sex are a little confused themselves.

Gender only comes in two basic flavors, masculine and feminine. Academics are interested in studying both, but this does not assuage the fears of students who think gender studies is an excuse for feminist indoctrination. It’s quite true that academia these days is heavily slanted toward feminism. Now, it seems that every time this point comes up, someone claims that feminism is simply a matter of equality and fairness—equal pay for equal work and such. This is a half-truth at best. A wide range of things go by the name of feminism, and it is not talk of equality that makes many students fear that feminism is an assault on manhood. As we shall see, those fears have a quite rational basis.

Occasionally there are events on campus with the avowed purpose of demonstrating the value of applying the dialectical techniques of the liberal arts to questions of gender. Dr. Rosenberg’s argument that we need a required gender studies course was the most recent such event; another was the talk by Tom Digby that I wrote about in this publication last year. Sharp-eyed observers have noticed a pattern in these events: all of them take an attitude toward traditional masculinity that is a priori distrustful, and this leads to conclusions about certain masculine characteristics that would not hold up for a minute if these traits were given the benefit of the doubt and presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The evils of masculine competition, for example, are a common theme. It is frequently pointed out that athletic competition—especially the “manly” sports like football—involves players trying at least symbolically to subjugate each other. The one who fails and comes under the other’s yoke assumes—we are told—the degrading role of a woman. His masculinity has failed and he has lost his identity. It is easy to see the terrible psychological consequences this will have on the practitioners of such competition—the fear, the stress, the deliberate rooting out of compassion and love, the emotional stuntedness. The loser is forcibly stripped of his human identity and the winner, in order to force his will on the loser, must dehumanize himself, only to go on to further oppress women, whom he has deprived of their dignity by symbolically associating the loser with them. It is a horrifying story.

But it’s a dubious one. It contains much that is true, but it is applied with a broad brush. The broad application is usually implied, not stated. It is often presented, when the question comes up at all (and it does not unless someone really presses it), as a possibility, as something that happens some of the time, as something to keep in mind. That is, rarely will anyone come right out and say that traditional masculinity is unredeemable. No one has to say it. Like a teenage girl who has been absorbed in reading the Twilight books until love, to her, comes to mean a devouring, obsessive passion that literally sucks life away, the feminists (pardon me, but the label is convenient, since that’s invariably what they are) fail to describe situations other than the sensational one, so that what is ostensibly a worst-case scenario becomes the master narrative.

It would be foolish to claim that the suspicion of traditional masculinity has no grounds at all. If it did not, no one would ever have experienced fear or stress because of sports. No child would ever have been ostracized on the playground for being a slow runner, no boy would ever have been beaten in an English boarding school for skipping a football match, and no one would have been led by social pressure to waste hours watching games on TV that bore them to tears. That would be a better world than the one we have. What goes wrong in these situations is that what should be a game is assigned the importance of something in real life. Play is supposed to be a safe way to enact situations that would be painful or dangerous in real life. A football field represents, and in a fortunate person’s life substitutes for, a battlefield. There are opportunities there for physical prowess, bravery, and the camaraderie shared by people who fight together, but nobody dies. The bleachers are the home front: the spectators have the thrill of cheering on an army without the usual moral complications or danger to themselves from air raids.

In 1886, when a meeting was held to decide on a college color for Wabash, the most favored choice was heliotrope (for those who don’t know, heliotrope is a rather too precious shade of purple) until a student stood up and yelled, “Heliotrope hell! We want blood!” That is the origin of our beloved Wabash scarlet. In a similar vein, before this year’s “White Out Depauw” bell game, some students could be heard to say that after the game, our white sweatshirts would have turned red, soaked in the blood of Dannies. These students were right. That kind of thing does no harm to anybody. However, if the feminists we have discussed are consistent, they find Wabash students talking about the blood of Dannies about as acceptable as a member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation would find a politician talking about the Blood of the Lamb.

No one thinks that gender should not be talked about or studied. However, there are severe problems with the way it is usually talked about at Wabash. (The problem is undoubtedly as bad and probably worse everywhere else, but Wabash is my concern here.) Feminism’s desire to cross-examine traditional conceptions of gender is commendable, but it doesn’t adequately cross-examine itself. Students who are skeptical of gender studies have not been won over by the quality of the discussions that have been presented to convince them. Furthermore, they interpret the distrustful attitude toward masculinity as distrust of them as persons, contrary to Wabash’s great tradition of trusting students (whence comes this thing called the Gentleman’s Rule). I can’t blame them for either of those things. The conversation about gender at Wabash is still rough and lacking in many respects. It has not yet reached the point where we have any grounds for confidence that we will benefit students by prescribing it, as it is practiced now, for all.