Comment Of The Day: “Unethical Quote Of The Month: Wheaton College”

Chris Marschner, as is his wont, immediately gleaned some greater wisdom and broader lessons  from the last post. Here is his Comment of the Day on the post, “Unethical Quote Of The Month: Wheaton College”:

This is a clear example of ” if some is good, more is better” fallacy, or in economics terms the inability to assess when diminishing returns set in and eventually go negative. Inclusion is great if it builds knowledge but ultimately, total inclusion tends to faction formation and idea stagnation if the only premise for inclusion is to obtain political power through numbers. As the total number of groups represented grows, the resources to advance individual factions power wants diminish then decrease. Then infighting grows.

The success of the United States was built on individual achievement but the nucleus that holds divergent interests from devolving into chaos is a common ideal of we are one people free of tyranny, and not subject to the tyranny of the many. Out of many, one.

The college advisors have let these student leaders down if they did not counsel them that the extension of their reasoning would eventually lead not to greater inclusion but to ideological exclusion. It is painfully obvious that the SGA wants to exclude someone. You cannot promote inclusivity if it means to exclude those not like you. Being not like you is not genetically or ethnically based. Not like you really means differences in cultural values and experiences.

The college does not bear total responsibility in this matter. Politicians, the media, and peer pressure enforce and reinforce compliance in the diversity movement.

One example of media reinforcement is the “Erase the Hate” campaign in which recognizable celebrities stoke the fires of animus against the rising forces of hate in the U.S. They don’t specifically call out any particular group but the same celebrities are well known for very liberal perspectives. As a result, the message is interpreted as anyone critical of progressive causes is an instigator of hate. This is a dog whistle if there ever was one.

These students should be asked if the truly believe in diversity and inclusion or do they just want to include all people of the same ideological constructs that they hold.

17 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day: “Unethical Quote Of The Month: Wheaton College”

    • Ad
      I actually believe young people really do want to live in a harmonious world. Even I want to live in a harmonious world. What they will eventually learn is that ideas that are melodic in one key and tempo are often dischordant when combined with ideas played out in another key and tempo. The end result is cacophony.

      You cannot force resonance of ideas that are at odds with each other. Combining the Battle Hymn of the Republic with the Sounds of Silence will never be a musical hit despite being great songs in their own right. A great symphony results when every unique member of the orchestra understands that being third chair is as important as the soloist in creating the whole. But everyone plays from the same sheet of music.

      • In a perverse way, this is exactly what the campus government you discussed above is doing. Conservatism is discordant to their ears, apparently even frightening. So they have claimed that they feel their safety is threatened by… discordant ideas.

        They apparently want harmony and, if necessary, enforced harmony via suppression, or at minimum the shouting-down of ideas they find atonal and/or discordant to their music. These evil ideas must be refuted, sez they, presumably out of fear of some kind of violence arising from hearing them.

        I think a better analogy is conflict and resolution. We all have to deal with it every day, from business to the home, and it’s critical to learn methods and sources for examining and resolving conflicts.

        Conflicting politics provide a perfect mechanism for practicing this art when it comes to the public square, if all are given equal access, and this notion of fear of “safety” from an idea is mocked as it roundly deserves to be. These young folks are asking to be placed in a bubble where they receive no challenges to their thinking, lest it cause them distress.

        • They apparently want harmony and, if necessary, enforced harmony via suppression, or at minimum the shouting-down of ideas they find atonal and/or discordant to their music. These evil ideas must be refuted, sez they, presumably out of fear of some kind of violence arising from hearing them.

          It seems to me that when their position is grasped, that it has a certain — a definite — logic. If it did not have logic it would be completely non-sensical. It could not influence or stimulate anyone.

          It seems obvious that they desire suppression, and they will if needed shout down what they understand to be evil. But they do this in service to the good. The good as they understand it.

          You use an analogy (tonal vs atonal) that does not address the real issue. The real issue is good vs bad and good vs evil. It is Christ’s Kingdom (as they define it) or the Devil’s Realm.

          What I cannot understand, as I indicated above in another post, is why it is that you cannot or will not see the full dimension here. Let me spell out what that full dimension would have to be to allow a genuine *inclusion* of all ideas. It would be a free and open conversation in America on the issue and question of race and ethnicity. It would be a socially-permitted free association with people like David Duke. It would be an atmosphere where all the suppressed opinions, and all the structures of ideas and argument that are now pushed to the side and not allowed to be aired, would be encouraged to be aired.

          And what if those people and their ideas — say Jared Taylor with his racialist notions, and Kevin McDonald with his Jewish-critical analysis (to name a couple of the major ones) — what if they were allowed free association? To visit campuses? To organize rallies, talks, conventions, to appear on talk shows, to have their own networks, to visit schools and to give lectures?

          Thus, yes, they seek to enforce a *harmony* because this is the only option that appears viable to them. I orient myself very differently than they do and to all appearances very differently than anyone who writes here, but, for Heaven’s sake! I can easily see what they are afraid of and why. I cannot understand why you do not see it, or will not see it. Which is it?

          To understand how they view *us* (I mean me and those who entertain ideas that I entertain and some, not all, that I support) one has to devote time to that understanding.

          Please explain why, for you, attempting to understand these questions in a full dimension is linked to strawman argumentation. It is not the *straw* but rather *the man himself*.

          • My point was that true inclusivity requires an openness to competing ideas.

            I really don’t care if David Duke speaks somewhere. I will not seek to silence him and I would defend his right to be heard. With that said, I also do not have to provide a speaker an audience. That is the speaker’s responsibility. He or she must give me a reason that I will benefit from listening.

            Generally, I read things that either part of my current research or things suggested to me by others because they know the work intersects one of my interests. In short, I read such works as I need to.
            Keep in mind there as many opinions on this planet as there are people. Giving voice to each and everyone so that I know the greatest “truth” is impossible. It is upon those voices to catch my attention.

            If the people you reference occasionally are invited to speak then such speakers should be given the same deference that all speakers receive.

        • My music analogy hit a flat note. My goal was to point out that trying to artificially create inclusivity of everyone fails to recognize differences in tastes, preferences, and choices.

          People tend to self segregate based on interests and commonality of desires. When we try to command dissimiler interests to associate based on immutable racial and gender characteristics we wind up forcing them further apart in the long run.

          A certain amount of self segregation promotes harmony and social bonding, while too much leads to societal stagnation, intellectual retardation, and individual resentment.

          Perhaps I should have concluded my music analogy with we should never allow ourselves to be one hit wonders but instead strive to be an anthology of American creative genius working independently in our own way.

          • Lorenzo: “How sweet the moonlight sleeps upon this bank!
            Here will we sit and let the sounds of music
            Creep in our ears: soft stillness and the night
            Become the touches of sweet harmony.
            Sit, Jessica. Look how the floor of heaven
            Is thick inlaid with patines of bright gold:
            There’s not the smallest orb which thou behold’st
            But in his motion like an angel sings,
            Still quiring to the young-eyed cherubins;
            Such harmony is in immortal souls;
            But whilst this muddy vesture of decay
            Doth grossly close it in, we cannot hear it.”

            The music analogy is interesting, in fact. I would suggest that if you listen to the man’s presentation (the man who came to lecture against abortion) you will notice very sappy music. There is an effort to unite people in a false harmony and through false music.

            It seems to me though that now we are approaching a disharmonious juncture at a social level. Oh but it is so much more really. If in Skakespeare’s world there was a joint vision that united people *under the heavens* as it were, people now are becoming disunited.

            When we find that we no longer live in the same *world*, we might have to consider establishing a new orchestra. (It is my view that this is what is developing within the American system). But you know, there are so many strange things going on that no one can say where things are going. Its within the strangeness of lack of control that ‘God’ (or fate or providence or destiny) has its own say, don’t you think?

  1. These students should be asked if the truly believe in diversity and inclusion or do they just want to include all people of the same ideological constructs that they hold.

    You could ask that question, but it would make more sense to ask that question with the understanding that WC is a Christian college with a specific *Christian progressive* orientation. I would suggest that the general view of the College gives an amplified expression of the basic tenets of the *American civil religion* (see Robert N. Bellah “Civil Religion in America’) and it is within this set of beliefs, or this group of assertions, literally a sort of *metaphysic*, where the primary engine of the American multi-cultural movement resides. To be Christian, for them, is to be ‘inclusive’ and also global. To oppose that, or to question that, or perhaps to modify it, is to be anti-Christian.

    From the WC website:

    If you’re looking for an education that will not only teach you to think well but also to live well, consider Wheaton College, where you’ll receive a Christ-centered liberal arts education that will prepare you for a livelihood and life dedicated to serving Christ and his kingdom.

    That Kingdom is a specific interpretation of what ‘Kingdom’ means, and you can get a sense of it here [A Message from Wheaton College Trustee Rev. Samuel Rodriguez].

    My impression has been that the classic SJW is underpinned by a religious zeal which is a combination of a ‘Christ-centered message’ joined with a militant ‘justice’ activism, even when the activist is no longer foundationally a ‘believing Christian’.

    I always felt that our friend Chris was a good example of this: born in an Evangelical-Protestant home but divorced from the foundation of Christian belief, indeed turned against it in a form of atheism, but then given over to a zealous *justice-oriented* activism to which no opposition could be imagined.

    ‘American Evangelism’ is a complex topic (again see Robert Bellah) and yet it operates in so many different categories, not just in the doctrinal.

    Therefor, while it is certainly interesting to interrogate ‘what these students believe’, I might add that it is equally interesting to sift out how our own beliefs are informed, to one degree or another, by similar *evangelical* views.

      • He doesn’t need to find a way: it was laid out for him from the very beginning. He was rude and disrespectful to the Host, and needs to apologize while promising to engage in civil debate. The way back should be easy for any mature and reasonable commenter.

        • We Latinos are known to express hopes desires (and even demands) through indirectas. To say ‘find a way’ is an example of an indirecta. [The word is best translated by the English word ‘hint; ‘soltar una indirecta’ = ‘drop a hint’].

          You wouldn’t understand, its a Latino thing . . . 🙂

  2. I wonder what Wheaton College’s most famous alumnus, the Reverend Billy Graham, would think of the attitude expressed in that letter. Not much, I’m guessing. Of course, he’d probably be run off campus as an old ass cracker.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.