We Will Not Be Silent: The Reality of LBGT

Posted on 21. Apr, 2010 by Tim Widmer in Campus

It was an early February morning when Lawrence Forbes “Larry” King walked into E.O. Green Junior High. It was a school morning not unlike any other school morning. Larry went to his first period computer class. This would be the last class he would ever attend. Fellow student, fourteen year old Brandon McInerny sat down in his seat, opened his backpack and pulled out a .22 revolver. He raised it and fired twice, killing fifteen-year-old Larry King.  King was taken to the hospital where he was declared brain dead shortly.

The murder of Larry King was a hate crime, but maybe not the kind you would first expect. Larry King was not murdered because of his race. He was killed because of his sexuality and gender expression. King came out as openly gay at the age of ten. A naturally effeminate young man, King was tormented and bullied by the other students at his school for the next five years. This tormenting culminated in his murder on February 12, 2008. Brandon McInerny killed King because he was gay.

Regardless of whether you voted for proposition eight or not. This kind of violence is unacceptable. Each year LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) individuals are bullied, teased, and taunted because of their sexuality. Some are murdered, many are beaten, and some commit suicide. As you can well imagine this harassment has forced many students to stay in the so-called “closet” for fear of their own well-being. Hundreds of thousands of students are forced into silence because they are afraid to be who they are. Anti-LGBT action is a big problem in America today.

In 1996, students at the University of Virginia established a day of action in an attempt to create safer school campuses for all. Each year, for the past fourteen years, thousands of students nationwide have expressed solidarity for those who have been silenced by anti-LGBT behavior. Many participants identify as LGBT themselves, but many are straight individuals who consider themselves allies of their LGBT friends.

You may not have noticed, but at least for some students, Friday at PUC was a just a little quieter than any other normal Friday. Several PUC students participated in this year’s “National Day of Silence” organized by the GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network). They expressed their solidarity with LGBT students everywhere but particularly with LGBT students within our Adventist system, and even more importantly with students here on our own campus.

I participated in this year’s DOS event for the first time. I, being young and idealistic was hoping that maybe the youth of our church were past bigotry. However, the Day of Silence showed me different. It seemed that as I was silent I became even more aware of what people were saying around me. I heard many scoffers saying things like, “When you change the world…Let me know” or asking critically in response to the event “What the h**l is a pansexual? Does that mean the like animals?” A quick look through the Facebook walls posts of some of my friends and I saw more of the same. One of my friends announced through a status that he was participating in this year’s event, and somebody wrote, “DISLIKE! You of all people really???” It was responses like this that left me disheartened. The fact of the matter is that bigotry still exists within our little haven on the hill.

Identifying as LGBT is not easy and it does not present an easy road in the future. Many LGBT individuals loose friends and family because they reveal their sexuality. In Adventism, the response is also this harsh. Adventism, like many fundamental Christian churches does not have the best track record in providing support for those who identify as LGBT. Those who are “out” have had to rely on close friends for support, without very few other people to turn to. However times are changing and organizations are beginning to be formed. One of the biggest resources for Adventists is a group called Kinship. Their websites boasts, “Supporting and advocating for gay Adventists since 1976. “

One of the best and closest resources for those who want to find out more about LGBT on our campus and within a spiritual community is GASP (Gay and Straight People). This underground and student led discussion group provides support for LGBT students on campus. It’s open to both LGBT individuals and allies. You can find them on Facebook and join the group. GASP is a great way to find like-minded peers to talk to about LGBT issues. It’s a great way to take the first steps to begin to build a supportive LGBT community on campus.

There is also a “Safe Place” program here at PUC. About 20 faculty have opened their door at any time for you if you need a place to talk. Their doors will bear the Safe Place logo. Just stop by any of their offices and say, “I need a safe place to talk.” They are more than willing to spend a little time talking to you.  There is a list of faculty who participate in the “Safe Place” program on their website. Some supportive faculty on campus include Aubyn Fulton, Alex Carpenter, Shana Ruggenberg, and Leticia Russell.

For those of you who are struggling and questioning right now. I have four words for you: You are not alone. There are a lot of places from which you can receive support.

Resources:

SDA Kinship – www.sdakinship.org

GASP – Search GASP on Facebook.

Safe Place – http://pucsafeplace.wordpress.com

PUC’s Financial Outlook

Posted on 18. Nov, 2009 by Nick Dibben in Campus

PUC’s financial future has recently been an item of discussion for many people. A lot of these financial issues were brought to the fore last year as it was announced that employees of the college, other than student workers, would be expected to take a 10 day furlough this year. This would serve to reduce PUC’s expenses to a more acceptable level. Another plan that was put into place was to reduce the college’s portion of payments into employee’s retirement accounts.

PUC has three main sources of income. The first is tuition money from the students, second are donations made from graduates and others, and the third source of income is subsidies from the church. The place where the biggest effect has been felt has been in tuition and giving. Since a lot of families have less money to pay tuition, PUC has had to pick up some of the slack with increased financial assistance for students. The global economic crisis has also reduced donations given to PUC, because people have either lost money, or they are worried about what is going to happen with it. This has led to a reduction in the donations that PUC has received. California’s own budget crisis has meant that Cal-Grant has been frozen with no increases in the money available for tuition assistance for the past while.

Another problem that PUC has faced that causes financial problems is that there has been a drop in enrollment since the school year of 04-05. At the beginning of the 04-05 school year there were 1542 students enrolled at PUC. Since 04-05 enrollment has dropped to a 20 year low in 08-09 of 1278. It is not hard to see how this affects PUC financial health.

There is, however, good news for PUC’s financial future. In an economic crisis, people tend to go back to school. This means that for the year 09-10 PUC’s enrollment has actually gone up by around 100 students. Needless to say, this means good things for PUC’s financial health, and that is reflected by the positive outlooks of the administration.

One of the more controversial measures taken by PUC to reduce financial strain was the ten day mandatory furlough for all employees, along with the reduction of retirement payments. However, because of the increase in enrollment and the general increase in financial outlooks the world over, this has improved. Pending board approval, the amount of furlough has been reduced from ten to five days, and the proposed reductions in retirement payments have not materialized.

Overall then, while PUC has had better financial times, things are definitely looking up. The furloughs and reductions in benefits have not turned out to be as bad as everybody expected. With the new ideas that the new president, Heather Knight, has brought, John Collins, Vice President for Financial Administration, said that “I feel like we have turned a corner.” With the increase in enrollment and a generally better financial outlook in the world as a whole, PUC’s financial future has potential.

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.

The Adventist Advantage: President Heather Knight’s Debut

Posted on 24. Sep, 2009 by Peter Katz in Feature

Change has come to PUC, and it has a plan.

On the morning of September 15, Dr. Heather Knight, the new President of PUC, spoke for the first time to the faculty and staff. Knight, who holds a Ph. D. in English from Stanford, comes to PUC after eighteen years at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, followed by several years as provost of Andrews University.

Knight expressed her desire to make PUC into “the best Christian, liberal-arts college in California,” stating, “I believe that PUC is at an inflection point where we can choose to remain good, or we can choose to envision and enact greatness, and in bold innovative moves, make the leap from good to great.”

To make this change, Knight called upon the theoretical frameworks of business authorities such as Jim Collins and Peter Senge, ultimately coming to the conclusion that, in her words, for PUC to “survive and thrive in the new century,” it needs to capitalize on assets that make it unique. For Knight, that asset is what she called the “Adventist Advantage,” a series of seven facets which she identified as specific benefits of an Adventist education. These seven aspects fall into three basic categories: spiritual strength, personal health, and communal involvement.

As might be expected, Knight placed a great deal of emphasis on the spiritual benefits of an Adventist education and the hand of the divine in PUC’s future. Her first facet was, perhaps predictably, “Having Christ as a personal savior,” which she felt provides a “sense of security and salvation [that] adds meaning and purpose to [the faculty’s] lives, to our students’ lives.” This purpose, she later discussed, is integrally entwined with the ability of an Adventist education to bestow upon the students a “moral and ethical compass.”

Regarding the personal benefits, Knight cited the health message, noting that “the world is very focused on health and wellness, and we can trumpet” the advantage that our own emphasis brings. She also pointed out the environmental health and stewardship of the earth she finds in the message of the Sabbath as yet another benefit of Adventist education, noting that as far as nature is concerned, PUC is the epitome of “Location, location, location.”

Communally, Knight vaunted Adventism’s commitment to generous service via social institutions like the Dorcas or simply neighbor to neighbor. Drawing on her previous experience in positions regarding diversity, Knight discussed the aspect of diversity. She noted that PUC is currently ranked first for ethnic diversity in its category, and affirmed that multiplicity, stating that diversity is a means of “embodying the way of the kingdom of God” by demonstrating that despite disparate origins, faith is the “glue” that keeps us together.

All of these aspects came together to form the final communal, personal, and spiritual facet, which is that of education, in which Adventist schools attempt to integrate faith and reason. While she noted that PUC is “good” in many of these ways, she also declared that “Good is the enemy of great.” It is her goal, by understanding that “Just as individuals must continue to grow and to renew themselves, so must organizations,” students at PUC might become “intentional learners, empowered through the mastery of intellectual and practical skills.”

While Knight was understandably light on specifics, given the nature of the occasion, she did make a point of insisting that her goal of helping PUC achieve greatness would involve a policy of “Not nearly maintaining the status quo,” but rather, creating, cultivating, and culminating “B-HATS: Big, Hairy, Audacious Goals.” Surmounting the challenges presented to a shifting institution, Knight maintained, requires a complete “turnaround.”

The structure of this turnaround Knight intends to bring is a simple sounding but realistically daunting three-tiered structure:

1) Restore financial health.

2) Create marketing programs and brand the revived institution.

3) Redefine the educational mission and culture.

Though her statements were broad, the intentions and inspiration behind them was brilliantly clear. A change of presidency is an indicator of change for any institution, and Knight intends to utilize the opportunities presented by a restructuring to take PUC toward more fully realizing the goals she outlined. Her speech was something between a sermon and a business presentation, invoking the communal ties she lauded while insisting on a need for a new direction.

What does this mean for the students of PUC? It is, as of yet, difficult to say. Knight certainly comes with a history of creating financial security, stability which PUC currently lacks, even with an happily surprising quantity of new freshmen. While Knight told the Weekly Calistogan over the summer that she had no comment regarding the Eco-village, it could be that part of both financial health and marketing would entail a go-ahead for Triad’s project. An emphasis on the fiscal and creating a viable market for PUC may in fact be a movement toward further outsourcing and increased importation of services and companies to the Angwin area and PUC’s means of recruiting.

As for the academics and culture, it may be even more impossible to gauge the implications of this shift. The desire to push forward presents the culture of PUC and Dr. Knight with a paradoxical quandary. Radical change inherently implies liberality and a departure from tradition, but collective change requires communal solidarity—and Adventism tends to be a community that holds tightly to its traditions. What makes this paradox perhaps even more complex when discussing PUC is that the culture of PUC has, as of late, tended to be one that prides itself on its collective liberality.

Exactly where all of this will lead is, as of now, obviously rather nebulous. With Dr. Knight at the helm, however, there will be change, it will at least initially have structure. She has her goals solidly in mind, and a plan to achieve them. We wish her the best of luck, and look forward to beginning the journey of her new presidency here at PUC.

Look for more information on Dr. Heather Knight and the beginning of her experience at PUC in later C² issues.