Kenyon Observerthe

September 25, 2012

James Neimeister|page 6

Sodexo, a Story:

Kenyon Observerthe

April 4, 2013

Chris Murphy | page 8

Kenyon’s oldest UndergradUate political and cUltUral Magazine

Western Education’s Impact on AsianPoliticsA Vestige of 20th Century Colonialism

Kenyon Observerthe

April 4, 2013

The Kenyon ObserverApril 4, 2013

From the Editors

Cover Storychris murphy

Western Education’s Impact on Asian PoliticsA Vestige of 20th Century Colonialism

ryan mach

Jonathan Franzen and the Problems with Web Cynicism

ariana chomitz

Bring Colonialism HomeTeaching English Abroad Hurts Students Globally and Locally

sterling nelson

Moderation’s PotentialPope Francis’ Chance to Remake the Catholic Church

jon green

When Speech is Too FreeThe Potential for a DangerousPrecedent in the John Freshwater Case

5

6

10

8

The Kenyon Observer is a student-run publication that is distributed biweekly on the campus of Kenyon College. The opinions expressed within this publication belong only to the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opin-ions of the Observer staff or that of Kenyon College.

The Kenyon Observer will accept submissions and letters-to-the-editor, but reserves the right to edit for length and clarity. All submissions must be received at least a week prior to publication. Submit to tko@kenyon.edu

Cover Art by Nick Nazmi

Editors-in-Chief Gabriel Rom and Jon Green

Managing EditorMegan Shaw

Online EditorYoni Wilkenfeld

Featured Contributors Ariana Chomitz, Jon Green, Ryan

Mach, Chris Murphy andSterling Nelson

Layout/Design Sofia Mandel

IllustrationsPeter Falls, Nick Nazmi and

Ethan Primason

Faculty AdvisorsProfessor Fred Baumann and

Professor Pamela Jensen

12

14

5

Dear Prospective Reader:

The Kenyon Observer returns from Spring Break to address a number of issues pertaining to communities local and global. In our cover story, Chris Murphy draws from his comps to trace the influences of British colonialism in Asia. Also in this issue, Ryan Mach takes Jonathan Franzen’s critique of the American digital age to task, Sterling Nelson urges the new Pope Francis to moderate the Catholic Church’s stances on hot-button so-cial issues, Ariana Chomitz points out problems that arise when large numbers of American college gradu-ates go abroad to teach English and Jon Green highlights the legal issues surrounding the John Freshwater case before the Ohio State Supreme Court. As always, we invite letters and full-length articles in response to our authors. It is our hope that the argu-ments and ideas presented here will lead to further debate and discussion away from our pages.

Your editors,Gabriel Rom and Jon Green

FROM THE EDITORS

Though it is difficult to comment on an era still in progress, two things about the time we live in are appar-ently certain: our technology is rapidly improving and our standards for artistic composition are declining. As we are so commonly taught, there is no one currently writing who even approaches the greatness of a Hemingway or a Fitzgerald, let alone a Shakespeare, an Eliot, a Byron or an Austen. What we do have, currently, is one Mr. Jonathan Franzen, proclaimed in 2010 by the still-breathing corpse of TIME magazine to be a “Great American Novelist.” Franzen is known not only as the author of one or two important novels, but as a widely-published essayist, one of his favorite subjects being this certain cultural decline and the absolute certainty of its connection to the rise of the Internet, the e-book, and the constantly changing tech-nologies that fascinate our culture.

Franzen’s opinions on the dawn of the digital age are well-known: a quick Google search produces a flurry of his attacks on various forms of technology-as-entertainment. In the Sunday Times, the author of The Corrections and Freedom argued that web-based social media like Facebook encourage us to treat people as we would products, and that our sleek, fashionable, digital accessories are “great al-lies and enablers of narcissism.” In the Telegraph, he made statements against the rise of the e-book on the basis that it takes away from the permanence of the written word, saying “a screen always makes it feel like we could delete that, change that, move it around.” Speaking at Tulane, he decried Twitter as “the ultimate irresponsible medium,” supporting his assertion by pointing out that the 140-char-acter limit makes it “hard to cite facts or create an argu-ment.” In the Guardian, he declared that “it’s doubtful that anyone with an Internet connection at his workplace is writing good fiction,” adding that he himself seals off his connection to the Internet while writing and uses noise-canceling headphones to prevent distraction. Clearly, the developments that have come to define the modern world are nothing to Mr. Franzen but the harbingers of cultural and artistic decay.

Though it is never explicitly stated, Franzen seems to be implying that the American populace that has grown fantastically attached to digital technology is trapped by its own narcissism, growing sadly incapable of accessing the outside world. Embedded in that implication is the argument that modern technology can only create or ex-acerbate an unmindful selfishness in us, an argument that deserves our serious consideration. Indeed, I myself am inclined to at least partially agree with many of the au-thor’s laments: Facebook and Twitter are very often used as outlets for narcissism and similarly anti-social impulses. I do believe, as the character in his novel Freedom, Walter Berglund, complains, that modern life is plagued by a per-sistent meaninglessness with “no communal agreement, just a trillion bits of distracting noise.” And yes, as the man himself brilliantly puts it, I am “sick to death of hearing social media disrespected by cranky 51-year-olds,” because the quality and frequency of these attacks are characteris-tic of just that — an embittered adult more eager to make the deficiencies in his understanding of a changed world seem like an asset than to improve them.

One point sorely missed by these critiques is that young people were raised in a world of digital technology: treat-ing that technology as if it were one big blight on intel-lectual culture is therefore harmful to the potential of as-piring writers. Whether you like it or not, the experiences from which future artists will take inspiration will certainly be shaped by the increasing influence of the Internet and the iPhone, and rightly so. Encouraging people to detest the things that defined the world they grew up in isn’t good advice — it’s an invitation to artistic forgery, a call to pla-giarize artists who were alive in some presumably superior time that you never actually lived in. It’s trading real artis-tic creativity for volumes of misanthropic fantasy — one department in which our literary culture is not so sorely lacking. Another deficiency on the part of such inexpe-rienced critics is an inflexible interpretation of any one social medium’s given purpose. As author Jami Attenberg noted, what Franzen probably doesn’t understand is that

Jonathan Franzen and the Problems with Web Cynicism

RYAN MACH

6

“An intellectual is one who has discovered something more interesting than sex. “ Aldous Huxley

“a lot of writers have to use [Twitter] as a promotional device as well as a way to build networks.” Where he sees self-obsession and distractions, many others see the op-portunity to express themselves with honesty and disci-pline; to allow other people to read their fiction or poetry, listen to their music, appreciate their art. While suspicion of our culture’s rapid digitization is more than healthy, a wholly critical attitude towards such a complicated phe-nomenon fails to see its less obvious benefits.

Of course, sincere creativity published on the Inter-net can be lost in a sea of cheap self-promotion, shallow sentimentality, and trite diversions. To be sure, the speed and self-interest embodied by such mediums pose serious threats to our collective ability to rationally and impartially reflect on the world around us. But my point in all this is to demonstrate that it is rather dangerous to identify digital technology as being wholly oppositional to intel-lectual culture because it rather gloomily implies that there is no realistic solution to the problems it creates. If we are to reason under the assumption that the Internet is inherently detrimental to intellectual and artistic culture, the only way of preserving this culture is to abolish the Internet entirely. This solution is impossible: attempting such a reform would be a reactionary effort as futile as an attempt to return to an agrarian economy. The new, digi-tized world is here and the old world is not coming back. Having a completely oppositional attitude towards these changes excludes the possibility of accommodation, of changing the way we think and create so as to offset their anti-intellectual effects. So by being purely negative in his reasoning about digital technology, Franzen presents a problem for which he offers no solution, worse, for which he implies there is no solution. So why would somebody with the patience, creativity, and intelligence that it takes to be a writer come so abruptly to such a useless and pes-simistic conclusion? Perhaps it’s because he’s even fonder of his opinions than he is of writing.

What disturbed many readers about Franzen’s notori-ous tiff with Oprah was not his feeling that an invitation to Oprah’s book club was something less than a Nobel prize — it was that he, one of the incredibly few peo-ple lucky enough to be paid to write literature, couldn’t just quietly suck it up and go on the show anyway. If he

truly cares about enriching America’s culture through art, isn’t he actively working against that goal by vocalizing his discomfort with the recognition of his novel by a wider audience? Though he has since retracted his statements, Franzen nonetheless revealed something about his own character: that he is very fond of complaining. Not that that’s in any way a negative trait, especially for a writer. The problem lies in the fact that he likes complaining so much that he sometimes doesn’t think about what his complaints might mean to his audience and, therefore, the world about which he is so concerned with saving. At the Hay festival in Columbia, for instance, he said that not having to worry about a worsening state of global affairs is “one of the consolations of dying.” Telling people that you are so hateful of the direction in which humanity is heading that death has become a consolation isn’t a statement of faith; it’s defeatism. If you are so sure that this direction is fixed and that future generations are doomed to medioc-rity, your going around and talking endlessly about it isn’t noble, kind or loving; it’s selfish. If you’re going to say things that are unhelpful, narcissistic and purely negative to anyone who will listen, I would suggest Twitter.

Though I share Franzen’s anxiety that the modern world suffers from a great problem of intellectual indif-ference due at least in part to its being entrenched in the comforts offered by new technologies, I strongly disagree with the way he publicizes that anxiety. In his commence-ment speech at Kenyon, Franzen implored us to “put [ourselves] in real relation to real people, or even just real animals,” implying that our lives in rural Ohio were sim-ply too digital to be “real.” To respond to your point, Mr. Franzen: just because young people are more engaged in digital technology doesn’t mean we are any more afraid of the real world than you are. In fact, much to your cha-grin, the “real world” is changing, and we know that world better than somebody so averse to these changes would be, and are therefore better suited to writing it. To quote Byron’s dedication of Don Juan, I might remind you that “complaint of present days is not the certain path to fu-ture praise.” If you really believe yourself worthy of the title, “Great American Novelist,” you might consider being more thoughtful about the consequences of your hastily made statements before they are even more hastily pub-lished. It is sometimes better to rest on one’s laurels — who knows? Perhaps “your bays may hide the baldness of your brows.” Franzen, Jonathan. “Liking Is for Cowards. Go for What Hurts.” Editorial. New York Times May-June 2011, New York ed., WK10 sec.: WK10. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.

Dzieza, Josh. “Things Jonathan Franzen Says Are Bad for Society: Kakutani, Face-book.” Daily Beast. Newsweek 7 Mar. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.

Flood, Alison. “Jonathan Franzen: ‘Twitter is the ultimate irresponsible medium.’” Guardian 7 Mar. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.

Flood, Alison. “Jonathan Franzen Warns Ebooks Are Corroding Values.” Guardian 30 Jan. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.

By Ethan Primason

7

“It is easier to fight for one’s principles than to live up to them.” Alfred Adler

TKO

In this post-colonial, post-modern age, the conse-quences of twentieth-century dissemination of politi-cal frameworks from Western cultures and countries to their Eastern counterparts is becoming increasingly pronounced. Edward Said termed this type of analysis colonial discourse, an extension of Michel Foucault’s concept of discourse, and explored this topic extensively in his work Orientalism. As former Western colonies in Southeast Asia ascend politically and economically, it is imperative to explore the parameters of this discourse. More precisely, this will help us understanding the re-interpretation (and subsequent transformation) of West-ern paradigms in Eastern societies by former indepen-dence leaders, many of whom have set precedents for current leaders or are still in government. This is espe-cially important as regards to Asia, as the loci of world markets shifts eastward and if the consequences of the Western obsession with Communism in Asian countries are ever to be ameliorated.

One of the most salient Asian examples is Singa-pore, a First-World country with lucrative technologi-cal industries and a national university that is second to none Singapore’s survival was doubted from the start, because it was an tradeport with no hinterland or natu-ral resources.1 Yet Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and the People’s Action Party (PAP) drew on their British education, especially Oxford historian Arnold Toynbee’s “Challenge and Response” thesis. The People’s Action Party, better conceived as the Singaporean intelligentsia’ party, emerged as the most influential party through tac-tics based on outmaneuvering.2 The Nationalistic move-ment problematized the dichotomy between Singapore and Britain, especially because the PAP was leading the charge. Independence rhetoric did not reflect the reali-ties of the challenges posed by the future processes of constructing political and economic systems of organi-zation. The PAP leaders ostensibly portrayed Singapore and Britain as culturally separate entities, and reasoned that therefore Singapore should also be politically and

economically distinct from Britain. Yet the British co-lonial legacy in Singapore complicated this relationship, since most of the PAP leaders, the main orchestrators of this Nationalism, Singaporean colonial elites.

The power derived from Singaporeans’ transcul-turation, hybridization, and mimicry of British culture cannot be ignored. Homi K. Bhabha argued that these cultural phenomena create ambivalence, because the co-lonial elite become part and parcel of the system. The most salient and pertinent factor of their socioeconomic status to consider is their English education, through the British colonial educational system in Singapore and at universities in England. This intelligentsia developed a self-awareness and identity in opposition to British cul-ture, but these processes were products of their educa-tion provided to them by the British. In effect, because of self-interest, these elites were not diametrically op-posed to the British colonial administration, they bridled the movement’s momentum and vehemence, because their success and status in Malaysia and Singapore. The PAP kept much of the British colonial superstructure, recognizing the instrumentality of the various compo-nents: the 1953 Rendel Constitution, a legal system, the Internal Security Act, the Emergency Regulations, and the Special Branch (an elite, secret military police force). Without hesitation, PAP leaders co-opted the pre-exist-ing governmental toolkit; they were not bothered by the various systems’ British origin. The nature of the PAP-led merdeka movement was dominant, aggressive, and ar-rogant. It is important to relate Singapore’s history to Homi K. Bhabha’s concepts — ambivalence, hybridity, and mimicry — since Lee Kuan Yew argued that these were in fact advantages. He subdued his revolutionary rhetoric in the “The Returned Student” speech. But the trump-card is that responsible British leaders real-ized that independence must and will come to Malaya and that, therefore, it would be better to hand Malaya to leaders sympathetic to the British mode of life, willing to be a members of the British Commonwealth, and what

Western Education’s Impacton Asian Politics

CHRIS MURPHY

“The most fundamental purpose of government is defense, not empire.” Joseph Sobran

A VESTIGE OF 20TH CENTURY COLONIALISM

8

is most important, willing to remain in the sterling area.3

The PAP ruled as an authoritarian regime predicated on an elitist technocracy that expressed a sentiment of social paternalism similar to the British belief in the white man’s burden. British colonialism set the parameters for the Singaporean independence movement. During the PAP’s initial years in power in the early 1960s through the early 1980s, it functioned as a monolithic enemy that the Nationalist and Communist vied with each other to have the prerogative of eradicating colonialism

Oxford historian Arnold Toynbee published his twelve-volume tome, A Study of History, over the years 1934 to 1961. It was widely read across the Cambridge campus and was a tour de force in political literature, ush-ering in the “Challenge and Response” thesis into the discipline’s discourse, which was particularly applicable to nascent nation-states born in the post-colonial era of the second-half of the twentieth century. As Toynbee’s work gained traction and circulated throughout British society, critics and scholars praised A Study of History praised it as Toynbee’s magnum opus. Toynbee’s thesis and arguments were so influential, that after reading A Study of History many university students aspiring adopt-ed Toynbee’s paradigm as the modus operandi for their political career. The most notable example of a student convert was Lee Kuan Yew.

Lee exhorted this cohort to dismantle the colonial regimes in their countries and build new systems ap-propriate to the needs of the people of each country.4 He pointed to several past examples of regional lead-ers. Thahin Nu graduated from Cambridge, and returned to Burma to lead the country as its premier. Dr. Hatta went to Leyden University in Holland and used what he learned there during his time as the premier of Indone-sia. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the prime minister of In-dia, attended Harrow and Cambridge. Mohamed Liaquat Ali Khan received his education at Oxford, and returned home to Pakistan to become the premier. Most of these “Returned Students” had studied law in Britain, and use their knowledge of British law to use the pre-existing colonial institutions to their advantage and implemented technocratic solutions.

The most powerful realization of this political and historical enlightenment: the British Empire was not an invincible monolith, because other Asian countries had freed themselves. Lee exclaimed, “Empires never last for ever. Either the master and subject races finally merge…Or the empire ends with the subject races violently re-sisting and finally emerging as a separate national and political entity.”5 Over time, the parent-child relation-ship ceases to function properly, becomes cancerous and detrimental, and then ultimately it is rendered obsolete: the child grows up, and using the ideas the parent taught him, the child learns to think for himself. After ponder-ing his state of affairs, he will invariably want to change

some aspect(s) of the pre-existing system, if for no oth-er reason than self-interest, inclinations, and affinities. These socially transformative forces are linked to a soci-ety’s cultural values, parent and child countries’ cultures, are by definition different, and this is the underlying rea-son for imperialism and colonialism, to spread a certain society’s culture and at the expense of others’. Lee con-tinued his diatribe against colonialism back in Singapore:

We are a colony and colonies are out of date. Co-lonialism is on the way out but is not moving fast enough. We in the PAP intend to give colonialism a final push and sink it for good in Southeast Asia. The colonial system alone is not our enemy. Our enemy is the evil that colonialism brings.6

It can be rightly argued that British colonialism brought Singapore into a state of modernity, but as the process of modernization continues in Singapore and other Asian countries has to be done on their own terms. S. Rajaratnam, a PAP leader and Minister of Culture, concisely and persuasively argued this point, because Singapore lacked “established governments and cohe-sive national communities.”7 He developed this thought further,

This is where Western thinkers fail to understand modernization in the Third World. When they discuss modernization they do so not in terms of creation of authority and accumulation of power by Third World governments, but in terms of the limitation and diffusion of power and authority-things like bills of rights, separation and balance of power, multiplicity of parties, proliferation of opposition groups and so on. Government is evil and the less government the better.8

To understand the current situation in Singapore and other former British colonies in Asia, Westerners need to reconsider the prevailing political ideas and doctrines during the twentieth century amongst intellectual circles in Britain. Colonialism can be likened to a call-and-response relationship, and now to understand the Sin-gaporean and Asian response in general, we must look back to the British call.

1Important Dates: Britain starting pulling of Singapore out after 1959; Singa-pore-Malaysia merger 1963-1965.2merdeka is the Malay word for the concept of freedom (it is written in low-ercase). It became the mantra of the Independence movement in Singapore. The shout was accompanied by a clenched fist salute. Mark Frost and Yu-Mei Balasingamchow, Singapore: A Biography (Hong Kong University Press: Hong Kong), 323.3Lee Kuan Yew, “The Returned Student” speech (London, 1950).4Lee, “The Returned Student,” speech.5Ibid.6Lee, “Colonies Are Out of Date” speech (Singapore, 1955).7S. Rajaratnam, “Asian Values and Modernization” in Asian Values & Modern-ization ed. Seah Chee-Meow (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1977), 100.8Rajaratnam, “Asian Values and Modernization,” 100.

9

TKO

“If you want truly to understand something, try to change it.” Kurt Lewin

“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” Leo Tolstoy

10

ARIANA CHOMITZ

Last year, Kenyon gained recognition as one of the top producers of Fulbright scholars, ranking sixth in the number of Fulbright Winners from U.S. baccalau-reate institutions. Most of these scholars, as with the Fulbright trend in general, will teach English in a for-eign country. The English Fulbright, as well as other programs like it, which combine teaching and a for-eign placement, are attractive as they combine students’ academic strengths in English with their personal in-terests in traveling. The prestige of the award and the frequency of its conveyance on Kenyon alumni have normalized this path so much that students fail to think critically on the proselytizing of English as a global lin-guistic hegemony. When this happens, students miss out on opportunities to make a bigger and more ben-eficial impact in places that need these same skills and passions.

The languages we speak are not merely a collection of sounds, made into words, made into sentences — they are vehicles for culture and social interaction, and carry with them histories, nationalities and politics. The linguistic legacy of the British Empire continues in every continent save South America, as the major political powers of Europe, North America, Africa, Asia and (obviously) Australia still use English. For the same reason, there are many other countries that list English as an official language. Students are able to travel to such countries to teach English because of the language’s colonial history.

Of course, students who apply for Fulbright and other scholarships are not acting out of neocolonialist

initiatives. Students pursue these options in order to aid cross cultural communication, diminish inequality and promote education in areas and communities that have limited access to the levels of education that students find here at Kenyon. I believe that there are better ways to do that than teaching English abroad. The skills that make students marketable for foreign English-teaching posts are the same skills that the U.S. needs in its own flagging education system. Moreover, such skills can be put to use in other avenues of international goodwill.

Some common themes that I hear from those wish-ing to teach English abroad are as follows:

“I want to teach English abroad, in places where knowledge of English will help overcome inequality.”

Speaking of inequality, the release of last year’s ACT scores showed that the large majority of high school students in America will be graduating without a ba-sic competency in English, math, reading and science. Only 25 percent of students scored proficiency in all four subjects, while 60 percent failed to demonstrate proficiency in two of the four — and these are just the pool of students who were in a position to take the test, presumably in hopes of continuing in higher edu-cation. High schools are not giving American students the necessary skills to compete in or even enter the job market, and those who can afford college might then need to take remedial courses in the language arts in order to learn what should have been achieved in high school.

The failings of our own public education system

Bring Colonialism HomeTEACHING ENGLISH ABROAD HURTS STUDENTS

GLOBALLY AND LOCALLY

11

create enormous inequalities here at home, as compe-tency in our official language is no longer publicly ac-cessible or guaranteed. As an alternative for those who are committed to teaching and making a difference, soon-to-be graduates should consider programs such as Teach for America, which target the achievement gap in this country created by poverty and social in-justice. The U.S. school system requires the same skills and passion that college-educated Americans are taking abroad with them.

“Learning English doesn’t affect or threaten local cultures.”

The high social status of English comes from its unquestionable centrality to commercial and cultural connections throughout the world. More than a mode of communication, English transfers the idea of power and affluence and usually comes wrapped in American or Anglophone cultural values. English is a complex entity of language and culture that has already found homes throughout the world. Like introducing a non-native species into a new eco-system, sometimes languages can co-exist and even blend. More frequently, though, it can marginalize the native language and homogenize where there was once diversity.

The reality is that it is very difficult to participate in a globalized economy without English, and that English has gained a certain social cache that often ranks superior to other languages. In plac-es that use English alongside other official languages, English often signifies a higher status and denotes that speaker’s cultural capital.

Project Enduring Voices, a linguistic team from National Geographic, maps out language extinction hotspots where the transference of indigenous tongues from generation to generation are swiftly dwindling. There are cases of speakers of native tongues simply being wiped out in a natural disaster, but, more com-monly, languages become extinct when children decide to abandon them. When children grow up in an envi-ronment where two languages are spoken, they implic-itly sense that one of them is more valued than the other and adjust accordingly. As Dr. David Harrison, a researcher for Enduring Voices, puts it, “Children are little barometers of social prestige.” Children ensure or forsake a language’s future when they naturally evalu-ate its worth when growing up. The social pressures that govern the transference and use of a language are key; Harrison’s colleague, Dr. Gregory Anderson, says,

“Language endangerment happens when a community decides that their language is somehow a social or eco-nomic impediment.” In competition with larger, more socially prestigious languages, smaller, native tongues are marginalized.

South Korea is a particularly relevant example of the overwhelming craze for English-language education. By law, kindergartens in Seoul are actually forbidden to teach English, as studies show that learning another language at this age and in this context are inefficient, ineffective and may stunt the development of chil-dren’s creativity. However, South Korean parents are willing to pay any cost in support of the general belief that English-speaking children will have a higher social status and better professional future. As a result, there are a rash of illegal English-education kindergartens operating shadowy cram schools that are advertised in code words and which charge exorbitant, black-market price tuitions. English has been commoditized and is now treated like a luxury good, which may not be too

far from the truth.

“In this day and age, cross-cultural communication is paramount.”

Absolutely. But there are nu-merous other ways to contrib-ute to cultural learning and ex-change that go beyond teaching English abroad. I encourage students to learn other languag-es instead and promote creative communication by sharing oth-

er skills such as science or art. There are other places to teach English and other ways to travel internationally.

The world does not need more English teachers. Another consequence of the English language’s un-challenged rise to global ubiquity is that positions for English teachers are now less common, as the rest of the world begins to take ownership of the language. An Italian university, the Politecnico di Milano, has an-nounced that in order to realistically prepare their stu-dents for an international job market, from 2014 on all courses will be taught in English. In Norway and Swe-den, the majority of university students take courses in English, as well. As the world learns how to teach itself English, American college graduates will find less trac-tion in a competitive market where English is anyone’s game.

For better or worse (and there are many, many ben-efits of English as the global language), English is ev-erywhere. But if we aren’t careful, cultural and linguis-tic diversity might not be around for much longer.

“Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new.” Henry David Thoreau

TKO

By Peter Falls

“Those are my principles. If you don’t like them I have others.” Groucho Marx

As nations such as the United States begin and con-tinue to support same sex marriage and contraceptives, and, more importantly, as same sex marriage becomes more accepted socially, many wondered whether the Catholic Church would be forced to adapt, joining the rest of the developed world in the 21st Century as they deliberated over who would succeed Pope Benedict XVI. Many are expecting their se-lection, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires, to moderate the Church and move to the left on issues such as contraceptives and abortion, along with same sex marriage and adoption. But despite the place in his-tory he finds the Church, and although he broke from tra-dition by taking the name Francis, I don’t expect a so-cially liberal Pope. Given his prior positions on major social issues, it seems that the new Pope Francis will maintain the church’s traditional, hardline conserva-tive stances.

By naming such a staunch conservative on these so-cial issues, it is clear that the Church has no intention

of moderating. The Church must appeal to the younger generation if it hopes to maintain its global inf luence; opposing contraceptives and same sex marriage is only going to alienate the younger, progressive generation. Pope Francis called the 2010 Argentine bill allowing gay marriage “a plan to destroy God’s plan.” While the

need for the Church to main-tain a consistent doctrine is understandable, a refusal to bend could eventually cause the Church to break. Catholi-cism, at its core, is about shar-ing God’s word; by being in-f lexible to changing social attitudes, people will begin to think the Church is irrel-evant to their lives, tuning out the Gospel that the Church seeks to share. As the broad

themes in Christianity of love, forgiveness and charity will always be relevant, it is important that the Church maintains legitimacy with the global community. If the Church exists to spread love, forgiveness and charity, what good does it do to get hung up on conservative social values that do not interfere with these themes?

Perhaps an issue even more important to this time

Moderation’s Potential

STERLING NELSON

12

POPE FRANCIS’ CHANCE TOREMAKE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

“the Vatican needs a leader that will recognize that the people of aMerica and eU-rope looK to roMe for reli-gioUs leadership, bUt no lon-ger rely on it for gUidance in the bedrooM.”

“It’s a rare person who wants to hear what he doesn’t want to hear.” Dick Cavett

is contraceptives. An institution as pervasive and large as the Vatican, one that supposedly leads 1.2 billion people, condemns birth control. But many Catholics simply ignore such orders from the Church. As the Archbishop of Milan said before his death last year:

The Church is tired in Europe and America. Our culture has gotten old: our churches are large but our religious homes are empty, the bureaucratic apparatus of the Church grows while our rites and our vestments are pompous… The scandals of pedophilia should push us toward the road to conversion…. We need to ask ourselves whether people are still listening to the Church on these issues of sexuality?

I think about divorced couples who have remarried, with expanded families, who have officially violated Catholic laws by getting divorced in the first place. Let’s say a woman is left by her husband with three children. She remarries, and her second marriage works; should she have forced herself to stay in her first marriage for

the sake of adhering to an outdated, onerous religious law? The Church has remained two hundred years be-hind: Why doesn’t it move? Are we afraid?

This is, perhaps, the most candid and accurate diag-nosis of the problems that plague the Catholic Church. Their credibility already marred by scandals, they are not doing themselves any favors by falling behind on the times. How many large Catholic families do you see anymore? There just isn’t the commitment to the old-fashioned Catholic sexual values today. The Catholic Church may not be failing, but its relevance is certainly being questioned.

The Vatican needs a leader that will make the Church relevant again, a leader that will recognize that the people of America and Europe look to Rome for religious leadership, but no longer rely on it for guid-ance in the bedroom. For the Church to stay relevant, it must recognize its place as an aspect of a Catholic’s life, not Catholics’ entire lives. The Church is at a cross-roads; Pope Francis has an opportunity to bring Ca-tholicism back into the mainstream, but I worry that he will not take it.

13

TKO

Comments? Complaints? Suggestions? Differing

Opinion?Get your voice in print by submitting a Letter to

the Editors or full-length article to TKO@kenyon.edu

In June of 2008, the Mount Vernon Board of Ed-ucation voted unanimously to consider terminating John Freshwater, a science teacher at Mount Vernon Middle School, after an independent investigation concluded that he had preached creationism, claimed that evolution had been discredited and failed to teach the school district’s science curriculum. This report came after numerous allegations, dating back as far as eleven years, had been made against Freshwater’s conduct in his role as a science teacher. Furthermore, Freshwater was accused of “branding” a student with a Tesla coil, causing second-degree burns on the stu-dent’s arm. The following month, Freshwater appealed the decision.

Freshwater’s appeal hearings lasted for over two years, costing the school district over nine hundred thousand dollars. At the conclusion of the hearing, a non-binding recommendation was filed stating that, while Freshwater’s use of the Tesla coil could not be proven to be grounds for dismissal, but his “[persis-tence] in his attempts to make eighth grade science what he thought it should be — an examination of ac-cepted scientific curriculum with the discerning eye of Christian doctrine,” was. Following the recommenda-tion, the board voted 4-1 to officially terminate Fresh-water’s contract.

Following his official termination, Freshwater filed

another complaint, this time with the backing of the conservative, Virginia-based advocacy group, the Rutherford Institute, asserting that he had been termi-nated without just cause. After his appeal was denied by the Knox County Court of Common Pleas, he took his case to the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals, where it was, again, struck down.

One would think that after losing that many appeals in a row, Freshwater’s case could be considered settled. However, Freshwater further appealed his case to the Ohio Supreme Court, asking them to overturn the de-cisions of both the Knox County Court of Common Pleas and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

It is with the state Supreme Court that John Fresh-water appears to have found a sympathetic ear. While it has not yet handed down a ruling, a very harsh round of oral arguments suggests that the Justices are prepared to overturn the lower courts’ decisions and reinstate Freshwater. After the oral arguments concluded, it was reported that many of the justices expressed skepticism at the school board’s argument and appeared to agree with Freshwater’s attorney that presenting competing arguments in a science class, however unscientific they are, is not necessarily a fire-able offense.

It is less-than-surprising that the Supreme Court would be a more favorable venue for Mr. Freshwater as it is an elected body. The lower courts, not subject

When Speech is Too Free

JON GREEN

14

“Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason.” Jerry Seinfeld

THE POTENTIAL FOR A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT IN THE JOHN FRESHWATER CASE

15

to the electoral retribution from socially conservative Ohio voters, are perhaps more likely to consider the case without looking at it through a political lens.

Freshwater’s defense hinges on the idea that, as a science teacher, he has the right and the obligation to present competing evidence; furthermore, he ar-gues that as a teacher he has the academic freedom to pursue controversial ideas. This defense leads him to argue that the school board’s decision to dismiss him represents hostility towards religion, which can be considered to be a competing theory as part of the scientific method.

If the Supreme Court accepts this argument, they will be setting a troubling precedent that would place non-scientific belief on equal footing with scientific evidence as acceptable content for science classes. As teachers in Mount Vernon High School have com-plained, this is inconsistent with the scientific meth-od; teaching science in this way leaves students with an incorrect understanding of falsifiable, evidence-based inquiry (one MVHS teacher testified that she was forced to re-teach evolution to students who had been in Mr. Freshwater’s class, as they misunderstood concepts necessary to complete the freshman-year cur-riculum).

This is not to say that there isn’t room for teach-ing religious ideas in public schools; this is only to say that religious ideas are not science, and therefore do not belong in a science class. If, instead of preaching in biology class, Mr. Freshwater had instead led a vol-untary Bible study, sponsored a religious club or even taught a separate for-credit elective (all of which were

non-controversial elements of the public high school I attended in Virginia), he would not have been misrep-resenting what qualifies as scientific evidence. How-ever, when he chose to place religious doctrine, which is impossible to test in a scientific context, on par with falsifiable, evidence-driven content, he can no longer be said to be teaching science in the first place.

Accepting this argument would also broadly ex-pand the idea of academic freedom, especially at the high school level. As a teacher under contract with the

Mount Vernon School District, Mr. Freshwater was re-quired to teach the curriculum set by the school board; he was, in effect an agent of the public school system. He has the freedom to teach the school district’s cur-riculum in the way he sees fit; to accept his argument would be to say that he has the freedom to teach his

own curriculum.In this sense, Mr. Freshwater’s speech is subject to

more regulation when he enters his classroom than he would be in a private setting. As a private citizen, he has the right to hold whatever religious views he wish-es. As a public school teacher, he has the obligation to teach the subject material prescribed by the school district. To say that being fired for not only failing to adequately teach the school district’s curriculum, but actively teaching opposing material, violates a teach-er’s academic freedom is absurd.

Ohio’s Supreme Court should avoid setting danger-ous precedents concerning the scientific method, free-dom of speech and academic freedom by siding with Mr. Freshwater in this case. Moreover, they should avoid ruling in either direction until after May 7th, when Mount Vernon is set to vote on whether or not to raise the tax levy used to fund its public school system. In an election that was decided by roughly 200 votes last November, a ruling in either direction could have an undue affect on the community’s decision. If the court were to rule in favor of Mr. Freshwater, and did so during the run-up to the election, it would send a series of dangerous messages: that un-testable religion can be considered scientific, the Separation of Church and State do not apply if you happen to disagree with it and election-seeking behavior is more important than valid jurisprudence. One can only hope that it, like all the judicial bodies before it, rejects Mr. Freshwater’s appeal.

“God has no religion.” Gandhi

TKO

“if the sUpreMe coUrt ac-cepts this argUMent, they will be setting a troUbling precedent that woUld place non-scientific belief on eqUal footing with scientific eVidence as acceptable con-tent for science classes.”

“one woUld thinK that af-ter losing that Many ap-peals in a row, freshwater’s case coUld be considered settled.”