In Order to Form a More Perfect PUC: A Few Suggestions
Posted on 18. Nov, 2009 by Staff in Editorial
As we have several times mentioned in previous issues, PUC’s Student Senate is in the process of a reworking the constitution regarding the SA, clubs, and other aspects of student life. We at the C2 have decided to take a leaf from the books of many major newspapers past and present, and therefore have chosen to print our own considerations on the topic, in order to both create and facilitate discussion, and raise student awareness of the inner-workings of your government in general. The primary two issues on which we would like to stake some sort of stance are on the formation of clubs, and the still theoretical idea of a Publications VP.
In order to fully support our opinion on club formation, we would like to examine the fundamental, institutional motivation in club formation. A group of people can meet consistently to do whatever they so choose without officially being a PUC club (and we know of at least a few that do so). What, therefore, is the institutional benefit of being a club?
To become official, a group must fill out the paperwork with Student Services and be deemed an appropriate reflection of the PUC institution as a whole. Once this process is completed, and the club is “official,” and therefore … gets a booth at Fall and Spring fests. Ah, yes, and has a better chance of getting the Student Services stamp on its posters, “use of college facilities for programs and meetings at no charge,” “utilization of college business support services,” and a “student nominated and college administration approved adviser” (Organize a New Club, puc.edu). In short, becoming a club means that said club will be allowed without much hindrance to try to fund itself.
On the other hand, a group of students with common interests will be able to communicate through myriad other forms than posters and the ever-present Announce emails, and barring scheduling conflicts, an unofficial club can basically use whatever campus facilities are open. We are not trying to incite a rash of civil disobedience or unofficial clubs; what we are arguing, however, is that Senate owes it to the student body to facilitate student life. Therefore, let it be proposed that Senate set aside an amount of funding for clubs, and the process of club application and acceptance be relegated to the Senate. Moneys could come from a system with universal funding for each club, and further funding by application. Even if twenty clubs formed and each received $200, or even $100, Senate would still have plenty of funds available, and those clubs would have money to at least get started; for a small club, $200 could be all they might need for the year, or enough to help them grow into a large club. Ultimately, we propose this because at the present, previously standing clubs exist, but there is little motivation to form a new club. Senate’s money is our money; if it can fund and foster student growth, then it should. This legislation would move PUC clubs from the margins and into the forefront of social life. The details, of course, would need to be hammered out by the constitutional committee, but the idea remains.
Our second proposal is the creation of a Publication VP in the SA, and a rather radical restructuring of the publication branch of the SA as it currently exists. Offices like Funnybook, Yearbook, and our own have little time (or relevancy) to be public SA officers, and more importantly, should not be filled democratically. The general student body may have no clue regarding the degree of competency of a C2 Editor candidate; our own editor won last year’s election (against himself) with a mostly nonsensical poem posing as a speech—and the extent of his journalism experience is that he took Newswriting last quarter. It would be far more preferable for these positions (Funnybook, Yearbook, etc.) to be filled by application. Potential editors would be interviewed by a committee of Communication, Graphic Design, English, etc. professors, rather than chosen by a potentially unknowing student body. The editor of the NY Times was not elected by New York City.
Instead, we propose the creation of a Publications VP. This person would run on a platform, say, more funding for the C2 and Quicksilver, less for PUC Cast, and joining Video Yearbook and Yearbook into one publication (as a completely arbitrary example). The student body would therefore actually be voting on something substantive, rather than that the C2 candidate has gorgeous hair and writes pretty. This VP, in conjunction with the President, Financial VP, and hired editors, would determine funding for publications for the next year.
Again, these are simply ideas. Remember, because we feel compelled to mimic our State and Federal governments, the SA is apparently a Republic: the senators represent you and your opinions. If you like ours, tell your senator. If you hate ours, tell your senator. Else this will be a constitution by the Senate, with little input from a potentially apathetic people.
Declaration of Interdependence
Posted on 18. Nov, 2009 by Staff in Editorial
When in the course of human events it becomes potentially helpful for a people to express their opinions in support and in constructive criticism of an institution and to assume among the powers of the school, the separate and equal voices allotted them by an independently-minded and self-aware culture, a decent respect to the opinions of humankind requires that they should declare the opinions which impel them to such expressions.
We hold these “truths” to be self-evident—as self-evident as we hold any “truths” to be, given that we are all English and History majors—that not all institutions are created equal, and that they are endowed by their constituents with certain alienable rights, that among these are the right to praise, the right to criticize, and the pursuit of betterment. —That to secure these rights, Publications are instituted among PUC, deriving their just powers from the consent of the readers (and Student Services, albeit occasionally begrudgingly so), — That whenever any school achieves or approaches these ends, it is the Right of the People to approve or reproach it, and to facilitate a new face, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Growth and Happiness. The history of the present body of Pacific Union College is a history of repeated growth and relative progress (see above caveat), all having in direct object the furtherment of education and individuals. In this tradition, let these Opinions be submitted to a candid school.
It has currently Faculty members in need of a supportive community.
It is at present experiencing the same gray world of internet privacy facing the rest of the online community.
It does at this time have a Yoga group (we are not quite sure of the relevancy of this to our apparent theme, either, but it is interesting and fun nonetheless).
It contains within itself clubs of promising and valuable content undergoing undeserved scrutiny.
It has established within itself a new President, who is proverbially rocking our financial and structural socks off.
It has on its borders dispute between itself and the natives which even now press upon its leaders.
It is at this time reconstructing its SA constitution.
It, as with many other institutions, is facing financial crisis, and is dealing with it accordingly and with a great deal of complicated numbers (thank goodness for business majors).
It has recently subjected itself to a metaphorically equivalent UN examination by WASC, and is in the process of declaring and achieving goals.
In every stage of these Growths We are Petitioning for constructive support in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions will be answered, we are certain, by an outpouring of student interest, as befit a free people.
We, therefore, the Representatives of Pacific Union College, in the C2, Assembled, appealing to the student body for the rectitude (it means “decency”) of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of this School, solemnly publish and declare, that we are PUC-ites, and to PUC’s betterment we mutually pledge to each other our Minds, our Fortunes, our parents’ Fortunes, our future Fortunes, some of the state’s Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Letter: PUC Grads Lend a Hand
Posted on 27. Oct, 2009 by Various in Editorial
Sometimes we think angels are just little girls, but that is wrong. Sometimes, angels are college students.
On the 13th of October, it had been raining most of the day. We were quite frightened because the rain was not stopping; rather, it was coming down with fury! We have been flooded before, and just had new floors and carpets put into the house. My husband is handicapped, and cannot lift, bend, or carry much of anything. I am also unable to do any of the above. But I knew we had to do something. So I prayed. I asked that the fire station in Angwin have sandbags, and somehow have someone kind enough to deliver these bags, and put them around the house. At the time I called the fire house, they had no sandbags, but were expecting some to be delivered, but there were no folks there who would be able to deliver them to our home!
At about 4:30pm, there was a knock on the door. My husband answered it, and to his great surprise, there stood a few college students with sandbags, asking where they should place them. It was Mr. Tyler Cantrell and Mr. Nate Garcia, both students who had graduated from PUC. I tell you, they had wings on their shoulders and halos above their heads! These kind young men did the job they came to do for us, not asking for anything in return. I want to thank these young men who took the precious time out of their busy day to help us.
Don’t ever let one think our young people are not loving, kind, and considerate. I owe them so much for their kindness, meekness, humility, and service. Thank you, Nate and Tyler.
Sincerely,
Raymond and Yvonne Koller
OMG!: Profanity in a Profane World
Posted on 27. Oct, 2009 by Alexander Carpenter in Editorial
Recently our Student Services and Dramatic Arts Society co-presented a free showing of Lyrics from Lockdown, a spoken word performance by Bryonn Bain. Mei Ann Teo, the director of the show, prefaced the show with a disclaimer: “This is a true story of wrongful imprisonment. There are times when profanity is appropriate to describe profane conditions.” And the saga that Bryonn shared that Sunday, of systemic racism, negotiating the various responses to it in the black community, as well as the thoughtful death row letters of a seventeen year old who was unjustly convicted, a case championed by Amnesty International, was certainly more serious than the missed quiz question I just heard a student utter a flippant “f**k” over.
But apparently, despite the director’s caveat, someone wrote in to the president to complain that they are heard some bad words: damn, piss, s**t, etc. (A smart actor, Mr. Bain mumbled some of them, emphasizing the choking injustice.) Not only that, but a few other folks on campus as well have objected to the show because of the language. As usual, no one has actually stood up and talked to the artists involved.
These mostly anonymous censors certainly have a right to express their taste, and I think that a good education should broaden folks’ vocabularies beyond the dullard’s default to a couple-a friggin adjectives. But by focusing on less than one percent of the words, they reveal that they missed the social justice message of Lyrics from Lockdown. Naturally, given our increasingly diverse student body, all of the tens of students I’ve asked about the show praised it highly. One student I heard talking to another faculty member said it made her very proud to be at our college.
It just doesn’t strike me as in good faith (in all senses of that phrase) to listen to a man who tells a story about being wrongly locked up for two nights and three days and then at the end say: “Um. Not cool, dude. You swore.” But these folks aren’t even facing the artists. They are complaining to others. This sort of behavior is not conducive to community, particularly one that wants to pursue conversations about faith, learning, and Adventist identity. The last I checked, talking over folks’ heads is not a conversation.
Of course, as a member of the audience, I felt that the lyrical profanity expressed the inanity and insanity. Bain gave us a gray world not shown by Hannity, but, it is a true reality, for far too much of humanity. Henry David Thoreau once wrote, “Could a greater miracle take place than for us to look through each other’s eyes for an instant?” I’m personally glad for the chance to see and hear from New York while cloistered in Angwin. What a profane miracle.
Yes, sometimes seeing the world through anOther’s eyes can be shocking. But sometimes, that’s the point. It definitely was in Lyrics from Lockdown. It was a free show, no one was required to attend, and Bryonn Bain was a guest on our campus. Unless the folks objecting have also spent three days in New York jails because of the color of their skin or worked within the soul-sucking prison industrial complex, I imagine we probably shouldn’t be telling guests how they should describe their experiences with racism and wrongful imprisonment. There was nothing tasteless in the truth that Mr. Bain shared about how he was profiled and dehumanized. Now if someone is more offended by swearing than racism and injustice, at least going public about that confusion of priorities is a good place to start a conversation, I guess.
There is a quaint myth out there that Christians don’t use strong language. But in fact, the Bible spits plenty of vulgar language. For example, Isaiah writes, and the Authorized King James Version committee of scholars translates, “Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? (36:12)” Oh, snap! And Saul calls Jonathan a “son of a bitch,” which I find repulsive, but it fits with the narrative that’s unfolding in 1 Samuel 20 of the first king of Israel destroying everyone around him. There’s more. But most importantly, Jesus calls us to care about captives and even bring freedom to the oppressed (Luke 4). And Bryonn Bain, who uses his Harvard Law degree in his prison reform work, seems to be doing the work of the Lord. And from my reading of the Gospels, especially Matthew 5:22, as long as someone is not swearing at another person, Jesus really cares less about what we say, and a lot more about what we do.
This gets back to an old problem: prooftexting in which folks focus on a word or link random verses while losing sight of always, already present truth. All too often we not only do it with the Bible, but also with folks around us, taking them out of context, and looking for a way to dismiss messages that don’t fit with our sheltered experience of the world. As the great Christian pastor Tony Campolo likes to say, “I have three things to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”
After all, although we teach nineteenth century literature, history and visual arts here, Pacific Union College is not a finishing school. But we do have some work to finish. And a world of actual injustice, not merely words, to get upset about.
The New New C2 on the Web
Posted on 10. Oct, 2009 by Jonathan Pichot in Editorial
The Campus Chronicle is no longer only a newspaper. By changing our name to C2, we have also changed our focus. Part of that change involves a reassessment of the types of articles we print and how we publish.
The news is moving to new forms. As digital natives, children of the information revolution, we understand this intrinsically. Information is becoming mobile and effortlessly accessible. The newspaper industry is experiencing this as a crisis. Many medium-sized papers have gone bankrupt; print readership continues to fall and revenue with it. Large papers such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal continue to lose money. Many different culprits have been blamed: Craigslist, cable news, anti-intellectualism in American culture. But the fact is, the web is killing them. This new technology, trumpeted as the great democratizing force of information, is killing the very institutions that for so long in the United States have kept a check on government and a skeptical eye on the nation’s corporations.
Clay Shirky, professor at New York University’s graduate Interactive Telecommunications Program, has compared our moment in history with that of Johannes Gutenberg and the invention of the printing press. Like the 1400s, the 21st century has seen the emergence of a revolutionary new communication technology, the effects of which could not be predicted. These technologies, because of their ability to spread information cheaply and rapidly, destroyed institutions: in the 1400s, the Catholic Church, in 2009, the newspaper industry (amongst others.) Yet the weakening of the Catholic Church, like that of newspapers today, came before any viable alternative has emerged. In Europe, the collapse of the Church led to instability and chaos before the emergence of the nation-state. For 21st century America, the Internet is crippling the free press, an institution on which our Republic depends.
College newspapers, as the training ground for future journalists, should be on the forefront of finding new forms of news making and new business models. Sadly, that is far from being the case. College newspapers have not kept up. Most college newsrooms are still captive to the limitations of print media. Their distribution method of a paper newspaper does not reflect the way most people–particularly the technologically literate crowd of a college campus–consume information. If we are to stay relevant in this new world we must adapt as well.
C2 is committed to moving onto the web and doing it well. We are reorganizing our workflow to give you relevant news as soon as we have it rather than two weeks after the fact. As our website matures, we hope it will become equal to our print edition in terms of relevancy and content. For now, the site will reflect the print edition, but as we get better at this, the site will also feature web-only content as well as extended length articles and interactive media. The web will also allow us to try new methods of interaction. Commenting on articles will be open. We hope to integrate our commenting feature with Facebook to allow you to post on our site using your profile. We will encourage discussion that is relevant, constructive, and honest.
The web provides us with the means to democratize and amplify voices that may not fit into the print edition. We can publish online more frequently, in greater length, and with more diversity than we can in paper; this also frees up our paper edition to become more theme oriented, and perhaps become more of an arrow pointing toward the website. In fact, a motion toward online is our ultimate intent. We are here to foster discussion and discourse, and as members of the wiki-culture, there is no better way for us to engage in dialogue than the internet.
We have ambitious plans for our print and web editions. We hope you’ll help us out. Remember: C2 is a platform for students.
Capturing the Zeitgeist of PUC: The C2 Motto and Why YOU Matter
Posted on 24. Sep, 2009 by Peter Katz in Editorial
When our online editor, Jonathan Pichot, suggested our motto, we were all confused, to say the least. Some of us thought he was just making up words, but he was incredulous and insistent. He looked it up just to prove to us that it was a real word, and its definition was, in a word, perfect. “To capture the zeitgeist of PUC,” for those of you who don’t speak German, means to capture the essence, the true spirit, the very nature of what it is to be PUC. And that is our motto. The C2 is the medium through which the essence of PUC will be articulated, examined, questioned, defined. It is an essence that stands the test of time, yet shifts with every incoming freshman class. We want to explore the core of the culture that is PUC.
And we cannot do that without you. The line between our staff writers is the line between socialism and anarchy: we either have no staff writers, only people who write for us, or all of you are our staff. You pick; the outcome is the same. The C2 staff is a team of people whose job it is not to write, but to find writers, not to define, but to be the conduit for your own definition.
Certainly, we will be asking specifically for some articles, and we may even have specific people in mind. But the seven of us alone can hardly account for the zeitgeist of a school of over one-thousand. The “PUC culture” is a multifarious culture built of myriad subcultures. Does PUC not hear your culture’s voice, or not hear it loud enough? Speak up! Send us an article.
The process is simple. You want to write about something? Do it. Then send it in. Or talk to us, then do it, then send it in. We have no pet writers, no people whom we publish every time simply because they are our “staff writers.” You want to critique a movie made in Fisher Hall? Do it. You want to write an investigative piece about the presence or non-presence of X on campus? Do it. You wrote a great piece on anything, something academic, something silly, something somewhere between, and you want to see it printed? Send it.
Here is the logistical breakdown. You have an idea. You contact Peter, Craig, Melissa, or Erika via our emails or in person, and talk to us about your idea. We almost invariably give you the thumbs up, and you send us a draft. We work it over, rinse and repeat, and viola. You’re a staff writer. For that issue. Enjoyed it? Do it again. It’s that simple.
Want to write, but not sure about what? We’ll be sending out emails, using the BigScreen in the caf’, and advertising in the back of every C2 for ideas we’ve had, or articles we’d like to see in the next issue. Or stop by the office from 1:00pm-5:00pm Tuesdays and Thursdays; if those times don’t work for you, email, and we’ll figure out a good time to meet. Not to mention our open planning sessions, which we will announce via BigScreen and announce emails.
Want to write, but you’re not sure if we’ll take it? Of course we will. Perhaps with some work, but good news: most of the staff members are English majors. That means we were born with a condition that makes us actually enjoy working with words, and helping other people learn to write. It’s tragic, and we’re trying to get over it, but until then—take advantage. Nobody starts out at New York Times quality, and none of us on the staff are there yet, so you shouldn’t have to be. Just like the culture of PUC grows, so too do writers. If you want to write, we’ll make it happen.
If it’s not clear yet, we’ll repeat what we said at the end of last year: we want you to write. This is your school, your paper, your zeitgeist. Let it be known.
Recent Comments