Dear John,
There were a few good things I liked about the SPD, such as the fields mentioned to expand into in the "Academic A.2" section. There were a few other good points too, but I unfortunately lost my marked up copy of the draft and so will have to write from memory. The parts I didn't like are more general, and so I can remember them more easily. However, this email is written because I care about ICS and wish to see good things in its future.
The first point is that the words 'Faculty' and 'Students' are used throughout. These should universally be replaced by 'Senior Members' and 'Junior Members', as this is a purposeful and radical language change that ICS uses and should continue to use. To 'revert' to the other words would be a step backwards and be a symptom of ICS becoming something that its philosophy opposes (overly institutionalised, non-communal, top-down hierarchy, etc.)
Another thing is that the environment is not mentioned at all. This is drastic. We are about to wipe out life on earth by not actively doing positive things for the environment that we all live in. I'm using rhetoric, but many in the world believe this, some even more extreme. As such, we NEED to have an ecological mindset, where everything (EVERYTHING!) is thought through from the perspective of ecology and the improvement of life on earth. Without this, we may as well close our doors. Ecological thinking requires us to completely re-think many of the ways things work. I believe that it should either be an additional category, or an additional column. Or both. It is vital. Our very lives may well depend on it, and so does God's. I cannot stress its importance enough.
I also seems that there is a general lack of mention of community. Emphasising evening, distance and summer school will always draw focus away from the daytime community that ICS has for the majority of the year. ICS already has problems addressing gender issues, so now should be the time when we are focusing on community, not drawing attention away from it.
Connected with this, and with the 'JM/SM' issue is that in the 'Responsibility' column nearly all, if not all, the responsibility is given to non-junior members. I believe some should be, because this will give emphasis to community and mean that all involved at ICS invest in it and so care about it.
Finally (and this may not be all the issues, just the ones I can remember), I believe the wording of 'Outreach' should be changed. This word has too many connotations with aggressive proselytizing and exclusionary Christianity. I know that there are some non-Christians at ICS, and I consider myself a Christian-Pagan, no longer being about to consider myself merely Christian because of attitude/wording like this. My impression is that the founders of ICS would also not like this word being used. My suggestion would be to change it to something like 'External Contacts'. However, the precise wording would need to be thought through.
Please remember that these comments are made because I care about ICS and want the best for it and for the earth. My education at ICS has taught me to focus on community and the environment, and this is all I'm hoping to pass on to you.
Yours sincerely,
Stuart Basden
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Letter to the President
Here is a letter I wrote to the president of ICS today. I've taken out two sentences that were intended for him personally, but otherwise reveals my current thinking about ICS. It was written in response to the Strategic Plan Draft for 2017.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat is it with people who are always trying to change the wording of things?? It’s just confusing! I’m really sick and tired of people trying to change terminology for whatever reason. For one thing: It’s useless! No matter what you call them, a handicapped person is still handicapped, whether you want to call them “physically challenged” or some other jargon like that, it still adds up to the same thing!
ReplyDeleteTake the word “Negro” for instance. That word used to be okay. Then, somewhere in the midst of “political correctness,” the term has been changed many times from “colored” to “black” to “African American.” Now, you can’t say “colored” because it implies that white people are not “colored” and therefore somehow “better” or “Superior.” We can’t say “African American” because it’s offensive to those who are originally from Jamaica or some other non-African country. What is the proper term to use nowadays??
The same thing with the terminology at your school. Whether you call them “Junior members” and “Senior members,” the fact still remains that there are two types of people at your college: those who are there to learn (or those who are earning the degree), and those who are there to teach (or those already have a degree.) Changing the terminology of something creates this false sense of being “different” from every other school around, when really, it’s the same thing. It’s really unnecessary, and frankly, a bit confusing and misleading.
The same thing with labeling yourself a Christian-Pagan, Stu. You cannot hold to both Christianity and Paganism. Now, you can by all means be a Christian who studies Paganism, or vise versa. There’s a difference between researching something because you’re fascinated by it, and actually believing and practicing it. Just call it what it is, people! If you’re a Christian, then be a Christian. If you’re Pagan, then be a Pagan. You can’t have one foot in each door, because then you’re neither here nor there. You’re nowhere, and that’s exactly where you’ll end up.
When are people going to just call things what they are, rather then trying to re-define everything? I agree that language cannot fully describe everything, but constantly changing terminology of things just makes it more difficult. Let’s all get on the same page, people!
(Sorry about the two deleted comments. I had to correct some grammar.)
An anonymous friend wrote:
ReplyDelete"Are you speaking for christians, or just stupid people in general?"
People change the wording of things for important reasons. Words mean things, and words hold power. What you say and how you say it is important. As the use of words changes, what you say can be interpreted different ways.
ReplyDelete"Negro", or "Nigger" is a pretty good example of a word that has changed meaning. We have to be careful when talking about it to strictly concern ourself with word usage, and not get involved with the race-debate, but I think its quite possible to all agree that the use and the implications of the word has changed, multiple times, over the years.
"Damn" is another good example. Damn was once so offensive that it could not be printed in text, instead printed as D---. Now it is not even considered a swear word.
----
Now I agree that political correctness can be taken too far. As a company we have been banned from using the word "Experience" in job advertisements due to European Legislation on ageism. Advertising for a software developer with 6 years experience is hard when you can't use the word Experience.
But overuse of political correctness is not the same as being specific and careful about the connotations of words.
----
I should add as a caveat that I am not a member of ICS, nor have I read the prospectus Stu was replying to. Just making debate :)
-Iain
I'd like to post again to provide some better examples. As Maureen says, there isn't much difference between "handicapped" or "physically challenged". Both are impartial towards the disability and neither should cause much offence. What about "retard" though? Medically speaking retarded is a non-offensive phrase that describes the person. But most handicapped people will
ReplyDeleteThe nightclub I went to last week described itself as "Exclusive". They could equally have said "Up-market" or "Expensive" but the used the word Exclusive to deliberately imply a concept of the under-class and those who are not at the nightclub being somehow left out and worse.
For blogs like this, we can bandy around words like people throwing things around. But for offical statments and representations, the words reflect much more and hold more power.
Thanks for your comments Iain. Very well said.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Junior Member vs. Student issue, our institute has purposely employed that language to get away from the "those who are there to learn, and those who are there to teach" dualism. We stress that everyone at the school is there to learn. No one 'has it down' and can give up the quest for knowledge because they've arrived. We're all still 'works in progress'. I've had several classes which were run by a fellow Junior Member because the Senior Member was away that week, and those classes have sometimes been better (I've learnt more) than when the Senior Member has been around. This language also emphasises that we can all teach each other, as all our experiences are different, and so we all have something to say. And of course, it's Biblical (so you surely should approve Maureen?), all being part of the same body but being different 'members'.
As for things being confusing, that's not always a bad thing. It makes people take the effort to learn and change. Or be left behind calling people retards and niggers. I doubt you do that do you?
And no, we can't all get on the same page. We are individuals who have different experiences. There is a great diversity of languages in the world, and English itself has multiple 'correct' dialects. To try to find a universal language is a foolish and impossible task. Unless you make a race of robots. Which isn't too attractive to me, as I like to be able to think for myself. I think, Maureen, you have too high an opinion of the English language. Maybe you should only read the King James? Or maybe only the NIV? You know how those arguments of 'all being on the same page' go. And as you've found, it hurts and tears apart families.
I am Christian-Pagan for multiple reasons, and I believe I can be both. It's only your definition of Christianity that would force me to choose. I choose to reject your definition. I remain both.
Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying. (I admit, I wrote my comment very quickly, so what’s written on the page might not be exactly what I was trying to say.) When I said, “Let’s all get on the same page,” I wasn’t suggesting that everybody should speak the same dialect, or even that when a change is needed in language that we shouldn’t change it. The question here is, “Should the terms ‘teacher’ and ‘student’ be changed to ‘junior member’ and ‘senior member?’”
ReplyDeleteI’ve heard it said that once you stop learning, you’re dead. I would disagree that the term “teacher” somehow suggests that the person has “arrived” in terms of knowledge. As a teacher myself, I have experienced first hand what it’s like to learn things from those you are teaching. The type of learning is different in those situations.
I’m not saying that teachers are not there to learn, and vise versa. I’m saying that calling people “junior members” and “senior members” puts everyone on the same level, as if being older, wiser, more learned or more experienced means nothing. Yes, I agree that as Christians, we are part of the same body and yet different “members.” But, as that passage clearly states, even though we’re all members of the same body, that does not mean we are the same body part. We have different roles and different talents, yet we are all equally important as we are. Having a different role doesn’t make you more or less important.
The terms “teacher” and “student” denote a specific goal, or a primary purpose. They do not refer to rank or superiority. The term “teacher” typically has behind it the idea that the teacher is the one who has been studying a particular subject longer than the student, and therefore has a better grasp on the material, or a deeper knowledge in the area than the one they are instructing. This does not mean that a teacher doesn’t need to learn anymore, or that a student doesn’t teach, it just means that is not their primary purpose. In fact, the best teachers are the ones who continue to study the subject they teach and continually share the new information that they come across.
So, then what is the purpose of using the terms “senior member” and “junior member?”
No, it’s not only my definition of Christianity that would force you to choose. It is THE definition of Christianity that would force you to choose. I’m curious as to what your definition of Christianity is. I’m also curious to know what your definition of Paganism is, and how it is you could possibly combine the two. Just because you believe you can be both does not make it so. That’s the biggest problem I have with post-modernism: the “Everything is relative to my point of view” mindset. There are no standards to hold people accountable, and there’s no way to judge absolute truth. (But that’s a whole other can of worms left for another day.)