Students, profs question community standards
Morality debate creates a buzz
March 21, 2007
Ashley Chapman
Block Hall was packed from the front to the back. Latecomers congregated by the door. Drugs, drinking, smoking, and sex would be discussed before the night was over.
More than 180 students gathered March 8 to attend a campus debate on the merits of community standards. The event kicked-off the new Speech and Debate wing of the Foreign Affairs Society (FAS).
“I was expecting a good turnout but this surpassed my expectations,” said FAS President Amy Mochar.
The debate, titled “Should Morality be Instituted in a Christian University/College?” was attended by both students and faculty. While many views and opinions were expressed, FAS Vice President Craig Ketchum clarified that the debate was not intended to undermine university policy. Professors Dr. Holly Nelson, Myron Penner, Peg Peters and Cal Townsend formed the debate’s panel.
Discussion was candid right from the start. Before commenting on morality, Penner addressed the opinion that Student Life was leery of the debate. “Student life should sponsor these events,” he said, “not try to constrain them.”
The panel was divided over the effectiveness and ethics of legislating morality. Penner and Nelson claimed that legislating morality was impossible and possible, respectively. Peters and Townsend disagreed about the function of a Christian university.
“Don’t operate it like the church,” said Peters. But Townsend rebutted that a liberal arts education was intended to be an extension of the church.
After speaking, the professors chose to forfeit further rebuttals, and took questions from the audience instead. The students’ questions brought the issue to a personal level, focussing on Trinity Western University’s code of conduct, the community standards.
Penner said that creating a well-intentioned code is possible, but he sees the difficulty of making rules universal and relevant. “From what I understand, half of you ignore them anyway,” he said.
This statement spurred questions regarding student contribution to the university’s code. Fourth year student Matthew Jenkins said that the code’s “big brother” aspect is not consistent with the code’s intentions, and Dustin Engel claimed that rules would be most effective if students got behind them.
“Faculty, students, staff and administration should dialogue together,” Nelson said, advocating a multi-voiced university. “One group may end up with more power, but [not to the point] that another group is silenced and forced into subversive activities.”
Penner affirmed that students need self-discovery in a healthy environment, but also the chance to “figure it out” for themselves.
Peters also thought students needed this chance to create their own moral guidelines. “Home schools and Christian schools have done all the moral work for them, and then they come to Trinity,” he said, referencing TWU’s strict code of conduct.
Taking an alternate approach to the issue, third year Tyler Curll asked about the academic effects of the code. Townsend answered the question, saying, “It would be hard to teach first-year students with hangovers.”
“None of us is saying there is no place for rules,” Peters added. He questioned the equation of TWU’s community standards with Christian morality.
“Why do we choose these rules? What about gossip, or pride?” he asked, adding that these actions could also be legislated morally. “What about greed? Should we kick out students who drive a BMW to school?”
In their closing statements, the professors shared their visions for TWU’s community of faith. Penner used his statement to challenge the audience on their views. “What do you as students think is worth policing?” he asked, quickly adding, “You’d better not say ‘nothing.’”
After the closing remarks, the room was buzzing and discussions continued outside after Block Hall closed for the night.
The event received a great response from students and faculty alike. “[Open discussion] is exactly what needs to happen,” said first year student Dave Matthews, following the event.
“I was amazed by the quality of the questions,” said Townsend. “These university students can think.”
Now you go...
Got something to say?