Moreover, we wanted to consider how one self-selected identity can impact another, and a person as a whole. We didn’t expect that our approach would appeal to everyone, but several of the phone calls we received criticized our “overtly liberal” display or inaccurate representation of a typical Denison student (whomever that might be). To be clear, there were no political motivations behind the piece, nor was it an attempt to accurately portray the student body. Instead, we sought students who might claim multiple identities by both relying on suggestions from faculty and randomly inviting other students off the quad. We asked them to be photographed and to list their identities, and then employed the design with no consideration for the identities they claimed. Our only intention was to draw attention to an issue. Apparently, it worked, but with mixed results.
Questions of Identity
I just received the most recent copy of Denison Magazine. What an embarrassment. “Nudist.” “Partier.” “Naked Guy.” The lame attempt to show off students’ tattoos. The lame attempt to show off the practiced disheveled look. The lame attempt to show off diversity. While it is sad to see students so desperate to be “cool,” it is pathetic that Denison Magazine wishes to be as well.
Todd Baird ’91 Richmond, Virginia
I am absolutely thrilled with the Summer 2007 issue. How refreshing! Congratulations to the editorial staff for taking such a bold and dynamic step towards introducing all alums to the New Denison—better, smarter and one that has a serious and clear understanding of the word “diversity.” The quick snapshots of a few students with a list of what they believe defines their “identity” was nothing short of marvelous. I loved it and it makes me long for my undergraduate days. A campus full of brilliant people, all struggling to become adults and develop directions for their lives. As many alums can attest, in midst of our college growing pains, we often came to know much more about ourselves than we ever knew existed. My Denison experience forced me, in a positive way, to learn, love, and know my own “identity.” Thank you also for Dr. Ranchod Nilsson’s wonderful article on the issue of dissonance and identity. I remember her well and I would like to thank her for her contributions on “The Hill”. I wish her the greatest of success at Emory.
Tiffany Bowman ’99 Simpsonville, Kentucky
The inquiry of students’ varied identities in the summer issue naturally moved me to think about my own identity as a member of the arts community. Admittedly, I was a bit disheartened because none of the featured students claimed that same identity, but perhaps that reaction was fueled by the sense that as an active member of Denison’s arts community, I often feel separated from the campus identity because the downhill location of the arts decreases its visibility on the hill, and I get the sense that this vibrant and flourishing contributor to the college’s climate and identity is often underestimated. But then I’m also reminded that for all the identities claimed by all those students, there are many more that, like the fine arts, were unclaimed but are still important parts of Denison University.
Jessie E. Kanelos ’08 Chicago, Illinois
As a proud alum of our liberal arts college, I was both amused & concerned in seeing the cover and subsequently the content of the Summer 2007 issue. At first glance I thought I was receiving a complimentary copy of any one of many progressive fashion and entertainment magazines to which I have subscribed over the years. Perhaps the Wingless Angels had stopped the presses as they rolled. Upon further examination, I realized that the urban hip-hop cover was indeed something by which to judge the rest of the magazine! Admittedly, several of the student profiles alluded to in the cover story were quite tame, compared with the dearth of dark or suggestive fodder we get in our e-mail inboxes every hour. The question remains however: Is this exercise of free speech and expression helpful? Will it help attract employers to the skills and talents that the featured undergraduates possess? Will it help relatives cope with the loss of those extolled within the memoriam pages of the magazine? Will it illumine the best and brightest among incoming students, rising seniors, and graduates? Some analogies are warranted for emphasis here. If I were say, hypothetically, a formerly conservative, closeted, black Republican who supported George H. W. Bush, would that harm or hurt the way in which I am hired, work, worship, and relate to others in my community? If I in fact did oppose the radical way in which my fellow 1980s classmates built makeshift shanty towns on the Academic Quad to oppose apartheid—what would this say about my own fear and idiosyncrasies? Who does history say was right? What are the odds, after all, that I would have had one, much less two, close Anglo-American classmates renounce Presidential Medals or other citations out of that social consciousness while I seemed to risk far less?
In closing, let me be clear: There is always a place for educated discourse and debate on social issues in times like ours. Issues such as racism, homophobia, sexism, lack of health care, immigration reform, and, yes, privacy rights need to be addressed. The question for us is whether the venue and the timing help or hurt the cause for amelioration and justice. If we are concerned about disappearing privacy rights under propagandist powers that arguably exist, we ought also acknowledge that there are always consequences (financial, emotional, and social) in fighting to forge ahead in a not-so-free society. And if there is any doubt on this matter, just ask any civil or human rights pioneer. Ask yourself too, regardless whether you live in a red state or a blue state is Denison ready for this? Is the prevailing culture ever really ready?
Rob-Travis Jackson ’86 Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Tough Point to Argue
In “Talk of the walk” from the summer issue, Jeffrey Kurtz says that a Denison education should imbue students “with the courage to ask hard questions of themselves and their world”. And in their two letters, it appears that Thomas Howenstine and T.M. Roudebush are doing just that. Mr. Howenstine questions the environmental practices at the Homestead, while Mr. Roudebush questions the view that there is anything positive in Iran. But must these letters display such rancor to those with whom they disagree. Mr. Howenstine refers to those supporting the Homestead as “inmates running the asylum,” while Mr. Roudebush refers to the Denison faculty as cut-and-run Democrats who probably don’t believe in the United States. Perhaps we should add one more quality to the goals of a Denison education: civility. Yes, we must ask hard questions, but we also need to answer those questions with a measure of respect for those with whom we disagree. To disagree diplomatically may not be as easy as to disagree belligerently, but it can be much more effective. Such an approach, it seems to me, would go a long way toward increasing understanding and respect between those holding opposing views. It would also be a worthwhile goal for those seeking a Denison education.
Dale Gibson ’57 South Bend, Indiana
Back to Evolution
In the most recent issue of Denison Magazine (Summer 2007), William Barringer ’56 states that the choice between creationism and evolution as explanations of the origin of species is a matter of faith “because we have no way to prove scientifically what the correct concept/theory is.” To summarize Dr. Barringer’s view, evolution is a theory which has not been proven, and which faces insurmountable conceptual flaws. Some specifics and my comments follow. Dr. Barringer writes, “In nature, changes that occur naturally go from complex, high-energy entities to simpler lower energy entities… I know of no scientific explanation as to why evolutionary changes should have gone in the opposite direction from those normally occurring in nature.” My comment: This account of the second law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems at equilibrium. This principle does not apply to open systems such as the earth, which receives a continuous supply of new energy from the sun. “If a specimen of specie B were somehow to evolve from specie A, how does specie B reproduce?” My comment: This would be a good question if any given species were to appear full blown in a single generation, but that’s not the way it happens. Instead, the emergence of a new species occurs after many small modifications over long periods of time. The writer’s final point is that even if some scientist could reproduce the entire sequence of evolutionary events, the reproduction would not prove that the events did, in fact, occur in accord with the model. So, he says, “… it would appear that evolution will always be an unproven theory.” Scientific theories are not proven in the sense that Dr. Barringer uses the term. Rather, they are attempts to understand and explain the natural world around us, both living and inanimate, on the basis of natural laws and phenomena, as we currently understand them. An explanation or theory which invokes supernatural intervention on the other hand, is, by its very nature, not scientific, and hence, not appropriate as a competing theory to evolution by natural selection. Dr. Barringer and Dr. Kramer in the following letter are, in my opinion, absolutely correct in their position that all education should encourage the free and open examination of differing points of view. Why then are teachers of biology so resistant to the examination of creationism and/or intelligent design in biology classrooms? I would not presume to speak for biology teachers, but I would suggest that no one today would be surprised if astronomy teachers refused to give serious consideration to a geocentric account of planetary movements in which the planets revolve around the earth. Perhaps many biology teachers feel the same way about developments in their discipline; and perhaps good undergraduate colleges such as Denison should find a way to consider these disputes in cross-disciplinary or general education courses.
Donald A. Riley ’43 Berkeley, California