Tags
Related Posts
Share This
From the Editor: Stand up for Trinity
The 39th general election that will occur four days from now was called because a sufficient number of Canadians stood up for change. Disgusted by the way the country was being governed, Members of Parliament exercised their democratic right and passed a non-confidence vote that forced an election. On January 23rd it is very possible that we will see a new government step into power for the first time since 1993.
In a very similar fashion, members of the Trinity Western University community are beginning to stand up for change, exercising a right that they have been granted by virtue of this school belonging to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Students, faculty, and alumni have the right to appropriate representation in this university, a right that has been withheld from us since TWU joined the AUCC in 1983. The Faculty Association has already submitted a document calling for significant change, and TWUSA will call for student representation at the Board of Governors meeting in February.
In 1983, President Neil Snider wrote a letter declaring that Trinity Western College satisfied all the requirements to become part of the AUCC, the biggest university association in Canada. That declaration was probably not true then, and it is almost certainly not true now. The association admitted us at the time, but could revoke our membership if we were found to be in violation of its bylaws. This would have drastic consequences for TWU, and would call into question our ability as an institution to grant degrees in Canada.
Each of the 90 member institutions in the AUCC is expected to maintain strict guidelines in regards to academic freedom and academic representation. On this last point, TWU is dangerously close to breaking the bylaws of the AUCC.
The issue is one of appropriate representation – the AUCC bylaws stipulate that member institutions must have a Board of Governors that “includes appropriate representation from . . . academic staff, from students, and from alumni.” This means, among other things, that students should have an appropriate way to voice their concerns about unexplained tuition hikes– like the $840 increase last year that raised tuition to $14,520. Why, in a university where faculty are paid up to $50,000 less than their peers, do we need to raise tuition by almost one thousand dollars per student? Or why do students on campus pay housing and food fees that are $3000 to $4000 more than comparable, privately-funded universities such as Tyndale and Redeemer University Colleges?
Unfortunately, students and faculty do not currently have a venue to voice these concerns. “Appropriate representation” for the faculty has meant occasional, non-binding meetings with sub-committees that do not have any real power. And “appropriate representation” for students meant, last year, one five minute presentation from the Student Council to a few Board members during their lunch break.
Over the past two years, this lack of representation has led to a growing number of students and faculty who are concerned about their lack of a voice in the governance structure of this university.
This is not a new phenomenon. In 1988, only five years after Snider signed the document that declared us to have “appropriate representation,” the first Mars’ Hill ever to be printed raised an important question. Why were no student interests being represented on the Board of Governors?
A decade later, the issue was raised again, this time by the faculty. A report compiled from findings in a 1999 survey concluded that the faculty saw “a need for a shift in senior leadership style to a more open, inclusive, and consultative style of decision-making that genuinely embodies the university’s commitment to servant leadership.”
Servant leadership is one of the Core Values of our university. According to our university documents, servant leadership consists of “building a team spirit through shared and open decision-making,” and creating an environment where “everyone comes to share in the struggles, the decisions, and excitement of seeing the mission unfold.”
—–
Those in power have not addressed the rising concerns that there is a lack of student and faculty representation at this university. Without this representation, our school is in violation of AUCC bylaws. Such a violation could lead to the revocation of our membership, making a degree from TWU virtually worthless.
Over the past two years, those who voice dissent have been shut down, student calls for transparency and openness have gone unheard, and even independent consultants hired by the university to assess leadership ability have been ignored when their opinions do not match up with those in power.
Surveys done by Mars’ Hill and TWUSA indicate that students desire more openness and honesty, and that one of the biggest causes for concern in the student body was the lack of communication and student involvement regarding the tuition increase.
Last week, the Faculty Association (FA) unanimously passed a document entitled “Transparency and Accountability in TWU Decision Making.” In it, they pointed out that “the actual decision making process [of the Board] is opaque to most of our community.” According to the report, the Board has not appeared to fulfill their commitment to servant leadership. The document also points out that the Board of Governors “lacks provision for academic or student representation, and has no elected alumni representatives.” If this is the case, we are almost certainly in violation of AUCC bylaws.
Last year saw a brief shift towards openness, when the President’s Cabinet agreed to a public forum to address a number of issues, including the lack of student representation and high tuition. This year, however, calls for openness and transparency in regards to the Snider allegations have gone unheeded. I have received no administrative response to my editorials calling for an open review of the events surrounding the Snider allegations, and TWUSA received no response to their statement calling for similar action. The lack of response led the TWUSA Senate to write a letter to James Moes, copied to the TWU community, which states that their confidence in the Board was compromised by “what appears to be a lack of accountability and transparency.” The Senate also called for a referendum “to determine whether the students have confidence in the leadership of Dr. Hedberg and Dr. Snider.”
A leadership referendum at this point would be premature, as students do not yet have all the information available to them. It would be like asking the Canadian population to determine whether the Liberals were fit to govern the country without first hearing the Gomery report.
Trinity does not have a Gomery, but they did have Les Woller, a world-class independent consultant who was hired to help put together specifications for the new president and to do a review of existing talent. After presenting a report to the Board that called for change on multiple levels, something happened which led Woller to leave because, in his words, “I saw it was an utter waste of time to continue to consult with them when it was my belief that there was little or no motivation to change.”
Woller was not able to release a copy of the report due to a non-disclosure agreement that is part of most consultants’ contracts. However, Mars’ Hill urges the Board to release the report to the TWUSA Executive and the Faculty Association Executive. Mars’ Hill and TWUSA have called for an independent third party review of the administrative structure. The Board seems unwilling to listen to these requests, but the Woller report would provide some initial answers to the questions that have been raised. This information is vital to the future success of our institution, just as vital to us as other Woller reports were to the Fortune 500 companies, governmental agencies, NGOs and others to whom he provided his services.
In addition, Mars’ Hill urges the President’s Cabinet to release the Woller report, which almost certainly provides information vital to an understanding of the current state of leadership at TWU and the important specifications required by the next President. Regardless of whether this document contains difficult findings, it is imperative that it is released to the community.
The election that will be taking place next week was called because Canadians expressed a lack of confidence in the current government. Within the week we will see what the effects of their actions.
In a very similar fashion, members of the TWU community have a unique opportunity to exercise a right that they have been granted by virtue of this institution belonging to the AUCC. As students, we are entitled to have a say in how this school is run, and next week TWUSA will host a forum to address these concerns and provide a chance for students to decide on a course of action.
To facilitate participation in the democratic process, Mars’ Hill has provided information on the major parties and local candidates in the upcoming election. We have sought to provide students with the data they need to make an informed decision.
In the same way, we are also striving to provide the information necessary for students to exercise their right to appropriate representation at TWU, a right that has been withheld from them up until this point. To achieve this, we have put all of the necessary documents on our web page, including the requirements of the AUCC and the letter written by the TWUSA Senate. Mars’ Hill is also providing a copy of the governance report prepared by the Faculty Association. The report outlines a model of governance that would see appropriate faculty, student and alumni representation on the Board.
Go to marshillonline.com/stand-up-for-trinity to get informed and join the discussion. Come out to the forum on January 26th. It will be at 1pm in the TWUSA office. It’s time to stand up for representation, stand up for your rights, and stand up for Trinity.
As a recent graduate and new member of the Alumni network, I would like to commend TWUSA and Mars Hill for joining forces in pressing this issue. We are all aware of the insane amount of money this University spends on ‘student leadership’, and have not forgotten that student union fees are mandatory. Why is it so hard for the Board and President to put the two together?
Firstly, I want to thank the Mars Hill for bringing this issue to the forefront. It’s about time that we as a student body start to speak up on this issue and get involved with what’s going on at our University.
I’m a third year Trinity Student and am very happy about being here at Trinity Western. We have first class professors and also the opportunity to explore our faith and our intellect in the same place and in a very open environment. I want to see this school continue to grow and to expand it’s influence.
However, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t anything wrong and that we can’t have an active part in the betterment of our own university. How administration chooses to run the school directly effects our lives. We’re the ones who live in the dorms, who go to the classes, who accept the grades, and who pay the bills. Lest we forget, 85% of our university’s expenses are paid by yours and my tuition dollars.
This isn’t an issue of willingness to pay more. We’ve all accepted the cost and sacrifice of coming to Trinity and realize that in the end we’ll probably be better for it. We know that this is a positive situation, where we will probably get the most good. However, if I buy a car and pay $15,000 dollars , when it was only worth $8,000… I’m either a sucker, or I’m getting ripped off. Now, they may be different, but that doesn’t mean I have to put up with either.
We are paying lots of money to come here and we pay the vast majority of the univeristy’s bills. And yet, we don’t even have a voice, mandated by the AUCC(oh by the way..), on the board of governor’s. When they decide that they’re going to take money from the music program and spend it somewhere else… they don’t even care what we think. It’s not even a question.
It’s not like we’re even asking a whole lot. All we ask is what every other single university already mandates. (Yes, every single one..) It’s time the Trinity Administration stops addressing us like the children at the kiddie’s table. The decisions they make directly effect us and we have the right to at least have a voice in the decision making process.
In just a few short days, Canadians will be voting for something new. The Liberal party did well for our country and we are all certainly better for it. However, when the same leadership exists for too long, things go awry. Just as Canadians, after 12 years of Liberal rule are voting for change, let us stand up as Trinity Students and cast the same vote for our university. It is time for a new way of doing things, a way that is open, that is honest and that treats it’s students as the part owners that we all are. It is time we stand up for ourselves and the great insitution that is Trinity Western University.
I am very thankful this article was published, and I hope that a lot of students read it. Though I am not versed in the machinations of the universities inner workings, I can definitely see when there is a problem, especially when an expert like Woller comes in and does a report but the administration sits on it like a bunch of stubborn old men. That was only a simile, I know they aren’t all old men, but they sure as hell are stubborn. I desperately hope the administration feels the pressure, and I hope that we can bring in new leaders that are willing to work with the university as a whole and not just stand on perch, unwilling to come down.
i have to say, matt… well done. and everyone who is actually doing something about this issue. this is my 4th year, and whenever anyone asks what im going to do after, the only answer i can come up with is “pay off loans for a few years”. the problem is, after awhile of not having any say of it, you just kind of get used to it. thats the dumb thing that i’ve done. every once in awhile i think to myself “what the hell am i spending all this money on?” but it passes, and i realize there is nothing i can do about it.
im leaving this university in a couple of months, and i really dont have a lot of good things to say about it. the classes, i love. the people, i love. the profs, i love. but TWU? i really cant say much about the institution that is good. when people ask why i spend so much at school… i have no idea! i think students need to be better informed. it doesnt matter for me anymore really, but for future students. and for me, having alumni status… yea i dont really care. i know i wont be donating any more money here. ive paid way too much already.
i really agree with TWU4ME when he talked about not knowing where the money is going. when TWU decides to take money away from one program and put it into another, we need to be told about this. as an art major, ive been getting screwed around my entire time at TWU. it IS getting a bit better, but i know there have been tons of unfufilled promises while ive been here. such as a darkroom, which was promised my first year here, which has still not happened. if you dont care about certain programs… fine. just a little honesty would be nice.
really this is just a rant, and im pretty pissed off about all this, but i guess im a big wuss and never did anything about it but bitch and moan. now my time is pretty much done here. but to newer students… stand up – do something – so your not sitting at your computer a semester away from graduation not knowing where all your tuition money went… bitching like an old man in a rocking chair on the front porch… wishing i had gone somewhere else for a degree.
I find this information frustrating and dissapointing. Trinity prides itself in the fact that it creates leaders. We have so many student leadership opportunities and we even have the Laurentian Leadership Center in Ottawa. We all graduate from this institution as leaders. Then, why does the institution not trust students to step up to the highest form of leadership on campus and play apart in the ultimate level of leadership on our campus — the board of governors. They must create student positions on the board; this is the best way for them to communicate they believe in us as leaders.
I feel that your article had a huge affect on this campus, mainly because of the attitude that I believe it generated among students. More so than the actual words that you used, I feel that you conveyed an unnecessarily negative attitude of the University in your article. While I do see TWUSA’s need to take action as legitimate due to the events of this past year, and commend them for pursuing further accountability within the infrastructure of this institution, I feel that the “Stand Up For Trinity” article did not contribute to this goal. I feel that it was more destructive than constructive. The mission statement of the Mars’ Hill, as printed in every issue, states that it strives to “provide a forum for purposeful, constructive discussion among its members”, and I would be curious to hear your explanation for how you feel that this article is in line with that statement. Certainly it provides for a forum of discussion, but not in a constructive fashion.
The main reason that I feel this way is because of the many references that you made throughout the article to the letter that TWUSA received from the TWUSA Senate. I read this letter in the email attachment that James Moes sent to the student body, and I was surprised and interested to note many of the points that the Senate addressed in this letter. However, the validity of the many of these points was contradicted in the letter that Dr. Guy Saffold sent to James Moes in response (this letter was also attached to the email sent out). While the article by Kristin Ostensen also published in this issue of the Mars’ Hill partially addressed many of Dr. Saffold’s comments, it seemed to me that the “Stand Up For Trinity Article” hardly made sufficient references to Dr. Saffold’s letter, even when similar issues that he had specifically addressed were mentioned in your article.
I feel that the goal of the Mars’ Hill should be first and foremost to accurately inform students of issues going on. To me, it doesn’t seem that this was the primary goal of the “Stand Up For Trinity” article. If it was, I believe that the letter written directly from Dr. Saffold would have been published, instead of controversial opinions from the writer of the article. It is great to lend opinions on current events- I am not trying to dispute that at all. However, you specifically referenced the Senate letter in the article, but failed to disclose many of the things that Dr. Saffold stated in his letter, which (I believe) was largely written in response to the Senate’s letter! Many of the issues raised in the Senate’s letter were invalidated in Dr. Saffold’s response letter, but this was not adequately conveyed in the article.
I suppose my main point is that I sense a discrepancy between the mission of TWUSA and the mission of the Mars’ Hill in all of this. I understand that these two associations are inherently different in nature- but more than once in the article, the Mars’ Hill and TWUSA were linked together regarding certain opinions and viewpoints. As someone who attended TWUSA’s town hall meeting, thoroughly read through the three letters sent out in James Moes’ email, and carefully read through the last publication of the Mars’ Hill, I find TWUSA’s approach to this situation to be much different than the Mars’ Hill’s approach. I respect the fact that James Moes sent out an email to the entire student body with attachments of the letters, and I respect the fact that he is striving to keep the focus in sight: “The important issue is whether or not students have confidence in the Board of Governors” (as quoted in Kristin Ostensen’s article). I feel that TWUSA is keeping the most prevalent issue in sight; I feel that the Mars’ Hill is taking smaller, even invalidated issues and lending unnecessary attention to them in order to stir things up on campus. Consequently, this has had what I believe to be a destructive affect on the overall student morale on campus.
In closing, I want to maintain that I do affirm both TWUSA and the Mars’ Hill in their efforts toward further accountability between students and the board of Governors. Accountability is a Biblical concept and a vital one when dealing with institutions as large and influential as Trinity. However, I also maintain that the article printed in the previous issue of the Mars’ Hill did not work towards this goal in a constructive fashion. I would challenge the writers of the Mars’ Hill to read over Dr. Saffold’s statements, to really seek after the truth in this situation, and to even publish his unedited statements in their next issue if bringing the truth into the light is really a primary focus of the Mars’ Hill. However, if the Mars’ Hill finds greater value in generating interest through their publications (whether this interest may be positive or negative), then so be it.
Lauren:
“Certainly it provides for a forum of discussion, but not in a constructive fashion.” I believe we are past the point of internally wrestling whether or not this debate is constructive or not. And yes, I do think it is a constructive editorial. First of all, it is a call to be aware of the situation. It is educational. Secondly, it provides a manner to be constructive: going to the TWUSA forum, telling MH, TWUSA, and the UNIVERSITY what students think about it. Three, it puts the university on notice that there is no more free passes.
For one, this has been an issue since the 1980s. Sooner or later, you need to start taking more than small steps to correct a wrong, especially if that wrong is in violation of the university’s right to exist (ie. proper student representation as stipulated by AUCC bylaws).
The problem that is really facing us right now is whether or not a grassroots voice can really be raised isn’t it? I am worried that there is a certain amount of naivety on behalf of a number of those most aggresively advocating for change. Even if this has been an issue since the 1980s it has not really registered in the student conciousness during that time it seems – it is questionable whether or not it is registering with the general population of students even now when it is talked about openly in the school newspaper and the student association (something that has happened very seldom in my past four years here by the way). If you go into Douglas Hall or ask one of the numerous commuters who seem to have little or no real connection to the university save through a couple of classes I can almost guarantee that they are completely unaware of the issues. We recently had a TWUSA forum that was reasonably well-attended I suppose – but if you looked around the room you saw a lot of familiar faces: TWUSA representatives (past and present both), student leader types, Mars Hill reporters and political studies students.
In light of all this I commend the Mars Hill and TWUSA for their attempts to try and make students more aware of the issues and the situation. With the TWUSA Senate and the Mars Hill taking what some have interpreted as an aggresive line it has at least seemed to get people talking on things like this forum. However, I think we also need to recognize that the desire for instantaneous change after 30 years under the same leadership holding the same principles is simply not going to happen when the issues fail to grasp the majority of students’ imagination and passion. Regardless of how long this has been an issue, it can pretty confidently be stated that it is still not an issue at present for the majority of students. If I could find out how many letters have been written to members of the board of governers after the it was suggested at the TWUSA forum that students do so, I’m sure I’d be dissapointed. If we need evidence that board reform isn’t registering in a sophomore guy’s mind we need to get out of our Mars Hill, TWUSA boxes and go attend a dorm meeting in Douglas. When you get down to the guts of it I fear that most of us are more annoyed at the fact we’re sitting on folding chairs instead of bleachers listening to Guy Saffold read Allan Hedberg’s letter than we are concerned about what’s being said.
I’m not at all trying to justify ignorance. I wish that more people would try and get aware of what is going on, of what we can do to improve this university; and by doing things like this online forum and printing stories about this in the student newspaper and having open TWUSA forums hopefully we are increasing awareness. However, what I am asking for is for those who feel that student representation within 6 months is essential and that sort of thing to try and approach the issue realistically and face the fact that for a huge chunk of the student population this is simply a non-issue at the moment and until it is an issue that really takes hold of the student population it is hard to be taken seriously – it so easy for those pushing reform to be written off as “extremist fanatic” types. If you’ve been dealing with an issue for years and years it is understandable to want to “up the ante” so to speak, but the reality is that most of us as your regular student with few connections to student government have been dealing with these issues for maybe 2 years, or 4 months, or maybe not at all – so any discussion of the need for dramatic measures sounds ridiculous. This passion for change is good, but I would like us to be realistic in our desire for change, so that hopefully something actually does happen and we don’t just burn out in a bunch of angry (if passionate) letters and articles. To quote a famous Amy Grant tune, “It takes a little time sometimes…”
Thomas Cairns
“However, I think we also need to recognize that the desire for instantaneous change after 30 years under the same leadership holding the same principles is simply not going to happen when the issues fail to grasp the majority of students’ imagination and passion.”
I think you are missing an important principle in Canadian politics. People chose people to lead, not follow them. Further, people -especially young people – don’t generally like confrontation. Thus, no matter how serious things get at the university, most people probably aren’t inclined to bite the proverbial hand that feeds them in any serious manner. Especially when putting themselves out there could cost them.
I submit that people are more willing to let people with vision and passion run with that vigour than to have vigour themselves. While you may be disheartened that the most of the people who care about student matters are the people put into those positions ie. Student Council and MH, I see no reason to be. My experience at the university suggests that knowledge is power. And if people with full knowledge of the situation are concerned, then they are acting on behalf of the students who don’t know. Positions of influence are fiduciary positions.
“Regardless of how long this has been an issue, it can pretty confidently be stated that it is still not an issue at present for the majority of students.”
So? People aren’t rioting over the fact taxes are ridiculously high in Canada. Ought the powers that be wait for riots to do something? Not just on taxes, but anything?
“Until it is an issue that really takes hold of the student population it is hard to be taken seriously”
Well, I think that is your opinion. Sure, it would be nice if all students could have mass demonstrations. But why should it come to that for a university to take seriously the students. Students should not be taken seriously based on their numbers, but on the power of the arguments put forward.
So far, I see no constructive responses being offered by the university on this front. Students constantly run into a brick wall. For example, the accountability process has been completely questionable at Trinity. Yet, it isn’t an issue that hasn’t grabbed hold of a lot of people at Trinity. Does this mean that we must continually pound the students that there are abuses by TWU and they must do something about it? No. Certainly not.
My articles on TWU didn’t even garner a response by the university. In spite of the evidence pointing to flaws in TWU’s process, nothing come about it. Nothing.
If you want to talk construction, look first at the university. Nothing can happen until the university starts dialoguing with students and student concerns.
Until the university is committed to real dialogue with students, we ought not sit back and wait for every student to feel as passionate as we do about some of the issues. The university needs to address us based on the force of our ideas, and not the force of our numbers.
The point is not numbers, it is the content of our arguments. The ball is in TWU’s court.
Hey Jonathan, thanks for your quick reply to my comment.
“I submit that people are more willing to let people with vision and passion run with that vigour than to have vigour themselves. While you may be disheartened that the most of the people who care about student matters are the people put into those positions ie. Student Council and MH, I see no reason to be.”
I agree with you that people are more willing to let people with vision and passion run with vigour than have vigour themselves – and I did not mean to give the impression that I am disheartened that the people in positions of responsibility are actually taking that responsibility seriously. What is disheartening is the fact that I question the effectiveness of those voices despite their obvious passion.
If this has been an issue since the 80s and we have continuously been pounding away at the “brick wall” as you termed it, then we need to take a different approach. That doesn’t necessarily mean student demonstrations, but supporting those we have put in positions of influence, and also using our own specific sphere of influence for change be it in dialogue with staff and faculty or community church leaders or through a student leadership position. How do we support those we have chosen to put in positions to influence? At least one of the ways that was suggested in the forum a couple weeks ago was trying to enter into dialogue with the BoG through letter writing. If TWUSA or Mars Hillers or Senators have any other ideas, I’d encourage them to share.
“People choose people to lead, not follow them”
When I suggest that this is not an issue for the majority of students, I am not trying to suggest that TWUSA or the MH or other bodies should not be trying to do something about it – I’m sorry if I gave that impression. I think it is TWUSA’s responsibility to lead with vision. What I’m suggesting is that this vision needs to be transferred in a greater degree to the student body given the past ineffectiveness of working through the positions that were meant to act on our behalf (not the fault of the student leaders themselves, but more due to the attitude of the university).
“Students should not be taken seriously based on their numbers, but on the power of the arguments put forward.”
I totally agree. However, we both recognize that our arguments are not being taken seriously – so perhaps trying to get a larger group of people involved in the student body will help in that regard. I agree with you that the “ball is in TWU’s court” but they don’t even seem to be aware that they are in the game. I’m trying to suggest that maybe instead of pounding away at brick walls we should try and use our positions of influence to spark greater enthusiasm and awareness in the student body so that the BoG gets the idea that there is more going on here than one group trying to convert another to a particular style of governance. The BoG is a minority appointed to act in the best interests of the university, and as long as they think that TWUSA is merely another minority not representative of the greater student voice who is trying to act in the best interests of the university but simply in a different manner then TWUSA will continue to be ignored.
It is true that it is simply my opinion that the arguments of TWUSA and the Mars Hill won’t be taken seriously until this becomes a greater concern for the large student body and the church community that supports TWU. However, given that we have been struggling to get any effective change for a decade and a half – I think that it is worth a shot.
We are both wishing that the BoG would actually enter into some meaningful dialogue with student, faculty, staff – we’re both frustrated with what is an arrogance and unwillingness to take students and their concerns and really the commitments of the university itself very seriously. I’m just suggesting that if more voices are making compelling arguments, there is a better chance of it being heard and that there needs to be attempts made to gain these voices.
I appreciate your comment that the powers that be ought not to have to “wait for riots to do something.” I think our big accusation is just that: the BoG has not been as active in improving this university and taking real leadership in the sense of modelling accountability and visionary thinking. However, for whatever reason, they seem to be oblivious to this fact, despite the many arguments that have been made – the lack of argument and discussion is hugely dissapointing. Even if they disagreed it would be good to know why. There is no dialogue and that is a problem – so perhaps adding new voices to the mix will spark dialogue. What I am trying to say is that adding more voices who are willing to speak up for the university and what it is committed to will hopefully pay off in the long run. I feel that up till now we’ve been trying to work through democratic channels, through TWUSA representatives etc. but there the potential in the general student body has remained untapped until relatively recently – and given what seems to be the general attitude of the board up to this point, I think it is an option that needs to be explored – and I’m glad it is being explored as the Mars Hill and TWUSA try and inform more of the student population. Students are expressing concern over acting in a constructive fashion because for the most part none of us have had any interaction with the BoG or are even aware of the interaction that has occurred in the past. We are unsure of what constructive criticism and discussion would even look like because until the past couple years we have been denied that opportunity – which seems to feed into what I percieve to be an adminstrative bias against TWUSA/Mars Hill etc. as an outspoken minority that is not really speaking for the rest of students. I’m not saying this bias is true – but I think our case would be stronger if we could provide evidence against it.
I hope this clears up some misconceptions about what I was trying to say in my last comment and I would appreciate anything you or anybody else has to say in terms of criticism or response or a desire for further clarification.
Thomas Cairns
Oh, and just to continue to encourage people to keep looking into information etc. and continue to gain a broader perspective of what is going on it appears as though the board has set up a website at:
http://www.piersystem.com/go/site/500/
It looks like they are going to try and be posting information there and set up some sort of email feedback process. So I’d encourage people to go and check it out.
It’s funny. Universities are supposed to be places that incite controversy. They have super liberal newspapers that offend anyone remotely conservative. They send embittered students out in droves to picket. They make national headlines for their anti-war demonstrations.
They get peoples attention. They get heard.
But not at Trinity.
There’s that small group of leaders and political types that clamour for openness and change. They look incredulously at the apathetic masses going to class and returning to their room to attend to important matters like videogames and girlfriends. Life goes on — the troops fail to be rallied. Nobody really cares about change. They’re just their to float through. I don’t mean to downplay the voices of those that are active. I am simply pointing out that in so many ways, Trinity is like a highschool.
There’s a student council, but the admin doesn’t take them seriously.
Nobody is at all frightened of the politicking students. Besides, they’re nice Christians that wouldn’t cause any real trouble.
I commend those that seek change. It seems like a losing battle. I’m graduating in two weeks and I can confidently say that I failed to throw enough rocks, hurl enough pseudo-insults, and go to a single Town-Hall meetings. Why?
Because “politics” is relative. You were involved in that which mattered to you. It’s easier to engage what’s right in front of you. Administrative politics tend to be more abstract, and easier to dismiss. It’s okay to concentrate on what matters to you, and if that’s school and friends, then that’s fine.
But generalizing might be worse. Yes, there are apathetic students at Trinity. But not all of them. There are involved ones too, who have been trying to change things, and change HAS happened. In fact, this year has been one of the most exciting for grassroots initatives. How many new clubs this year? How about the Social Justice Club? Helping Hands Healthcore Collective? And now with Snider leaving, Raymond coming, there might be more changes.
(Is “inciting controversy” really the point of university?)
Apathy is not unique to Trinity. To suggest that Trinity is a dank hole of lazy and apathetic cattle is to dismiss and demean the hundreds of students who have been working, thinking, stewing, and making change…even though you didn’t mean to. If Trinity’s like a high school, it’s because a quarter of the students were just there last year. Ahhck, I guess the deal is, it’s dangerous to generalize. There’s good and there’s bad.
Involvement is entirely up to the person. Tourist vs. pilgrim. Sojourn vs. surf. You can’t expect to make a difference (or see a difference made) if you don’t step up.
I suppose there is still a long way for Trinity to go before it “grows up”. But leaving after four years, I feel like it’s been a place where there have been an incredible amount of opportunities to change things, if I chose to.
But that’s the key. You have to chose. Don’t blame the people in charge, don’t blame the culture, don’t blame the masses. It’s you. It’s me.
/end scattered thoughts.