In my last column I wrote about the first-year orientation debacle. Specifically, the method in which it was brought up destroyed most of the message the author wanted to portray. This week, I’ll be writing about the same first-year orientation debacle, but with a new emphasis.
The criticisms of first-year orientation focused mostly on the acceptance of practices and beliefs contradictory to Christian doctrine. Branches of the large umbrella of “Christian doctrine” that these beliefs contradict is controversial and worthy of essays. It’s also not the topic of this essay. It should suffice to say that the messages of homosexuality, sex, religion, etc. in E Pluribus and the Inside Scoop are seen as controversial or taboo by many Christians.
The fact that these views are debatable, that there are passionate people at Gustavus on both sides of the issue of all these controversial topics, should single-handedly prove that they are worth talking about. Many churches around the country have gone through this discussion—my own church, much to my chagrin, withdrew from the Presbytery over a decision regarding homosexual pastors.
As a school associated with the ELCA, it is worth discussing where we as a college institution and community stand on these issues, like many Christian organizations have. Nothing underscores this more than the “Rock” incident that happened about a month later—as a community, these are the kinds of topics that we have not worked out.
What makes this worse is the fact that there is legitimacy to claim that the shows made people uncomfortable. Like all things, this constructive criticism should be considered when playing for future orientations. And while I have heard a couple people who are interested in hearing the complaints and discussing how orientation could be changed, the whole thing seems to be slowly fading away. Unfortunately, if first-years were concerned or uncomfortable with what they were being presented, then the fact that they are new to Gustavus and less knowledgeable of whom to voice these concerns to means we would never know. We’re missing a key opportunity to address these concerns as a community right now.
Further, the response to the video has, in some ways, been astonishing.
Among the first responses to the videos that were suggested was disallowing non-first-years from even attending the performances. This, as a reaction to the whole “incident,” is mind-blowingly bad logic: it only makes sense if we, as a community, are ashamed of what was said at orientation. I sends the message that we want to hide the orientation rather than address the real problem.
This is one of the key points that came out of the civility forum—part of all discourse is being able to say your beliefs, stand behind them and recognize the consequences of your actions. If we believe that the message we send to incoming students is legitimate, and I completely think that we do, then why do we refuse to stand by that message? Likewise, if we do think there is a problem, why don’t we fix it?
Nothing would please me more in the next couple weeks than to hear (or hear about) legitimate concerns on first-year orientation brought forward and talked about—whether to Student Senate, a Letter to the Editor, the Dean of Students office or just in passing with friends, it is important any concerns be talked about that now, before too much time has passed. As a community, we cannot truly move forward from all this without finishing the conversation.