Letter to the Editor: Ordinary Sacrifices, Discussing Alcohol
December 9, 2005
Headline Re: “Bubbly and the bubble” MH Issue 5
I just wanted to thank Lauren for the points that she raised. It is so true that we want our sacrifices to seem significant, and we put up such a fight against “ordinary” ones. The issue runs much deeper than just “drinking or not drinking”. Thanks for addressing the shallow nature of our motives.
Rezi Amiri
From marshillonline.com
Lauren makes some good points about alcohol, but misses out on the following:
1) “Community standards… is not a discussion of right and wrong.”
Of course the discussion isn’t about right and wrong, but the way the Responsibilities of Membership is phrased, it sounds an awful lot like it.
For example, there are phrases that say the standards help the university “preserve its distinctly Christian character,” and paint the standards as “one aspect of a larger commitment…to pursue biblical holiness”
These phrases are moral phrases: they imply that if one does not follow the standards, one is not “distinctly Christian” and not pursuing “biblical holiness.” This then trickles down to student discussion, where the morally charged language is appropriated and becomes a useful tool by which to judge and alienate those who choose not to comply.
2) “When we chose to attend TWU, we did so with both eyes open.”
This seems to be the common sentiment but it glosses over the fact that Trinity has many unique characteristics that make the question of “choice” a little more difficult.
One, most students are at least somewhat still financially dependent on their parents. Their parents have had some say in the choice of institution, and I often wonder how many students have been “strongly encouraged” to attend TWU.
Two, Trinity is, if not the only Canadian Christian university, at least a forerunner in the arena. It offers incredible programs that can be found nowhere else. It has world-class professors that all are working from a Christian perspective. If one wishes this sort of academic environment, they do not have a choice about where to attend. They have to come to TWU, regardless of where they stand on the issue of community standards.
3) “When it comes to drinking, personal inconvenience underpins the debate.”
This debate is not about inconvenience, it is about how to address the most widespread social phenomenon in the world, for all time. Alcohol can be found in every niche of society, every social group, every occasion. This is not about inconvenience, it is about learning how to interact with the rest of the world.
University is a place where your mind is shaped and transformed. Trinity has taken on the burden of shaping the rest of the person too. If they continue to refuse to even discuss alcohol, it is at the risk of shaping students into people who are not able to interact with one of the most fundamental social rituals of humankind.
Left by RJ on December 2.
Now you go...
2 Responses to “Letter to the Editor: Ordinary Sacrifices, Discussing Alcohol”
Got something to say?
1. I agree that in the discussions of students and staff alienating language can be used regarding drinking, however, I think that the language of the actual community standards of themselves are fairly clear on the fact that the school does not mean to equate teetotaling with Christianity. I think the rule concerning drinking probably falls more appropriately under the core value of “Community”: “Members of the community place the welfare of the community above their personal preferences…[students are to]Limit the exercise of their Christian liberty in accordance with the University’s mission and the best interest of other members of the community. ” than under the pursuit of Biblical holiness. The standards themselves connect the matter of drinking with the “exercise of personal freedom.” I think the community standards themselves do try and make clear that this isn’t necessarily a matter of how holy a person is, but a matter of what those that wrote the standards consider as good for the community. Whether it is good or not for the community is where the argument concerning drinking should be made.
2. The fact that Trinity is one of the few options as a leading Christian university in Canada does not make the choice of schools any less of a choice. The fact is that Trinity has the standards, it is part of what it is; if that is a problem one would be better choosing another school. It is part of the school’s identity - a big part apparently because every (and I mean every) single year this topic comes up in the student newspaper. Most of us attend here, however, choosing to make the sacrifice of certain personal freedoms because the Christian teaching we recieve is more important than our desire to be allowed to drink. If it is a really important thing to a person another choice should be made, however, just because one doesn’t want to make a certain concession to a community’s standards does not give one the right to flaunt those standards. This represents a sense of selfish individualism I think - that the community should conform to your desires. One should try and change them if one feels they are wrong, but until they are changed, I think one should abide by them - especially since you chose to come here. Change can be good, but breaking community standards rather than trying to get new ones is no change at all. I find it frustrating that many of my friends who think the ban on drinking is wrong in the community standards also go out and drink - only affirming the administration’s assumption that students lack the maturity to drink and act responsibly and seriously undermining any integrity they might have to discuss the issue. It is hard to take those people seriously. (I should mention I do not know what category RJ might fall into, and am only expressing my own frustration here, not an observation of his/her character.)
As far as parents limiting their children’s choices as far as school, I feel bad for those students. However, I also think that drinking is an adult activity requiring adult maturity, judgment and indpendence - if a student depends on their parents for money to attend, they should respect their parents’ rules - and if they send you to this school I assume they like this school’s rules. If you don’t like the rules get out of the house (or so my parents said to me…and they weren’t joking), and stop taking the money. As one of the many students who attends this school without any financial assistance from my parents I think it is possible option.
3. If you need alcohol to interact socially I think this represents socially dysfunctional behavior. This is a problem, and I’m pretty sure people who depend on alcohol in this way could be called alcoholics. In my personal experience with friends who drink most people do not care when I do not drink at events where they happen to be drinking. I have found myself more than able to interact with others who are drinking and have only very seldom felt like I was alienated because of my refusal to drink at certain times (these times of alienation happened mostly in high school but most people get over these sorts of immature acts of alienation in high school - although I will admit that I have found this sort of behavior disturbingly and dissapointingly common at Trinity). Generally I have found, in fact, that drinking often serves as an impediment to social interaction - however, I will admit that this is probably due to the fact that my drinking friends often end up having a hard time controlling how much they drink - and drunk people are kind of annoying. If RJ could explain to me how drinking helps socially, I would genuinely appreciate it because in my social experience I have found alcohol to be either a negative or neutral factor. Regardless, I think the claim that you need to drink in order to be able interact in a social context, is, to put it bluntly, ridiculous.
I think good arguments can be made for and against the community standard of drinking. I just feel like the argument that RJ made in the his/her letter to the Mars Hill was a poor one - I would be happy if he/she responded with some sort of rebuttal to what I’ve said here so we can start up some sort of a dialogue. Although…I think there are better things to be discussing and I find our community’s continuous obsession with this particular subject kind of annoying sometimes…but, I seriously would love to hear from RJ - or anyone else who is angered by my comments and wants to come to RJ’s aid - or bring something new into the discussion. Peace and love,
Thomas Cairns
Thank you Thomas.
I’d like to add that I think a severe blunting of the delicate and diplomatic rhetoric which props up this part of the student agreement would be in order, ridding all that could lead to moralizing/anti-moralizing. What do you think? Here’s my suggestion:
“It is painfully obvious that the effects of ethyl alcohol in increasing quantities -loss of social inhibitions, temporary ineptitude, loss of focus, vomiting, and hangovers- which we have observed to plague the freshman of other local post-secondary institutions are not conducive to education, building relationships, continuing enrollment or any worthwhile community activity. For the purposes of this policy and as a rule, we cannot rely on you for moderation in this regard, nor if we imposed a double-standard based on age or maturity could we rely on the fledgling members of our community to curb their egalitarian impulses, so therefore both the possession and ingestion of ethyl alcohol are prohibited. As we feel this statment could not be endowed with greater clarity, any penalties levied due to the disregarding of this policy are non-negotiable.”