The more I thought about the letter, the more uncomfortable I became. To my surprise, I found myself upset because in disagreeing with the action of Shorter’s administration, the author of the letter assumed a similar stance to that which Shorter displayed. Instead of pointing out how Shorter could diffuse the antagonism toward faculty, staff and students, he instead exposed a side that, surprisingly, was as prejudicial as he accused Shorter’s administration of being.
By volunteering his own set of “vulgar lyrics” for which the president’s wife was seen to appreciate with her laughter and applause, he indicated to me that censorship is OK — if it’s yours! That other people laughed and applauded was a strike against them as well as the “lyrics” put the writer alongside the president of the college in being in favor of the changes occurring at Shorter!
The language and tone of the article displeased me because the writer displayed none of the love and charity that his “faith” was intended to foster.
While I oppose the changes I have seen taking place at Shorter University, posing “unreasonableness” against “unreasonableness” is no solution.
Anger distorts the arguments, and leads the opposition to assume they are “more” right than those who oppose them.
Forgiveness and reason are better alternatives. In time, it is such arguments that may make a real difference.
Just a reminder...Before the Christian right got it's hands on the leadership positions Shorter was a completely normal liberal arts college.
In less than a year that image has been completely shattered, Long serving employees have been fired because they were unwilling to sign a statement if faith.
All this angst and hate and what has it produced?
A community torn asunder and severely wounded.
Good Job Right Wing Christians.
Rhuidean
I have read both of your letters with interest and must admit that I, too, have found a number of items of grave concern.
Mr. Adler, you, I believe, are a regular contributor to this newspaper. I have read some of your letters to the editor and columns.
Mr. Arnold, you have become a regular fixture on these pages since the problems began at Shorter.
In the case of both your writing styles, you call upon others to speak gently with each other, to seek reason; and in your case, Mr. Adler, you call for forgiveness.
I would ask both of you to pause a moment and consider the situation. I think you will agree that there are many people who respond to letters here who have absolutely no stake in Shorter or her future. In many cases, the dialog has devolved into issues totally irrelevant to the subject at hand. Tempers have flared, and again, often between individuals that simply like to argue on the RN-T pages.
Setting those individuals aside (for clearly, we have no way of influencing their discourse) let us examine those players who have a vested interest in Shorter's future. I would ask the both of you to reflect and tell me what sorts of people you would have thought you would encounter should you have met a Shorter graduate, professor, staff member prior to June of last year? What sort of comportment would you have expected from them and what would you, for the most part, have experienced?
Let us imagine for a moment that the encounter you would have had with them would have been regarding, say, the proposal for a new hospital to be built in town. Do you imagine that you would have had a pleasant conversation, despite the fact that you might have disagreed on the issue? I would contend that you would have. Those connected with Shorter are mindful of a tradition that we were upholding and would have comported ourselves accordingly. We have been taught, by those who instructed and nurtured us on the Hill, to be lights to the world. Do not think for a moment that we are not cognizant of that fact.
Why were the fundamentalists (I trust that you will agree that the appellation is a matter of fact, not intended as a slur)able to make headway onto our Board of Trustees and into positions of authority? Precisely because we could not, in our wildest imagination, conceive of what was about to occur. Gentlemen and ladies do not force themselves into places where they are unwanted. They do not hide the truth with soothing words, they do not behave as conquerors, ignoring the plight of the conquered. This is what we were taught on the Hill. This is the way we live. This is what we believe. I do not expect either of you to understand this in full, simply because you are not of the Hill. You did not go to school there, you did not experience what we were taught there. Shorter was a place where we polished the gems that came to us, we smoothed the rough edges and taught civility and grace alongside the saving grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, by how we behaved and how we treated each other. That is what forged the strong bond that is Shorter.
To your point, Mr. Adler, it has been reported here and elsewhere that we tried reason. It was ingrained in the Shorter family that civil discourse was to be valued. We were met with a deaf ear, closed doors (and yes, I experienced exactly that) and the rough crude ways of a bully - complete with the bully hiding behind closed doors when his authority was challenged.
Mr. Arnold, I believe you have cited letters, emails and phone calls of a most unpleasant nature. While I don't deny that some of that occurred, we had been struck a mighty blow, our integrity as Christians was called into question, we were allowed no venue for discussing the radical changes that occurred either before or after the edicts were handed down.
What you cannot refute, however, is that there has been absolutely no avenue for dialog, for civilized conversation, between those of us who are Shorter and the current administration or board. The board of trustees has been given a set of talking points and admonished not to be drawn into any discussion where logic or reconciliation could be accomplished. Dr. Dowless has closed his doors to most, and the few that did get an audience with him early on have consistently reported a relatively pleasant greeting to be followed by a stony face and an ideology set in stone with no room for compromise.
The two of you talk of forgiveness, reason, judgement and a constituency who is angry and accusatory. Neither of you have experienced what we have. Each of you goads us to comport ourselves in a more civilized manner. Both of you, gentlemen, are speaking to the wrong audience. Anger occurs when logic and reason are cast aside from those whose agenda is to change the very nature of an institution that has stood for over 100 years. Sharp words come from those who have been ignored or cast out.
Mr. Adler, I have known the gentleman to wrote the letter to which you refer for over 30 years. I assure you that his words come from pain, frustration, and an anger that from all indications, you are incapable of comprehending. As long as I have known him, he has been a gentle, kind servant of God. For him to have been driven to write a letter that you, in your ignorance, have the audacity to condemn, shows me a pain that is profoundly troubling.
What is of a greater concern to me is that neither of you gentlemen appear to be capable of understanding the nature of the hurt that has been forced upon us, our frustration with our inability to find anyone in the current administration with whom we may reason and your apparent incomprehension of the great wrong that has been foisted upon a great institution.
If you and Mr. Arnold are incapable of doing something more constructive than handing down your platitudes and opinions, I suggest that you either find a way to bridge this divide or remain silent. As someone on these boards has said, neither of you truly has a dog in this fight. It is between the administration of the Georgia Baptist Convention, the trustees and upper administration of Shorter and those of us who through our efforts as faculty or staff or our tuition and hard work to become graduates of Shorter and have earned the right to call ourselves Shorter University.
How dare you dismiss my genuine concern with a heavy-handed, ridiculous show of false gratitude. My neighbors, who lived under the administration's terroristic censorship rules which by the way were not clearly defined but aggressively scrutinized,told me about this flash mob with sincere despair. Witnessing their year long angst where they dealt with disgruntled students and parents while trying to meet the unspoken standards of the administration, seeking vacant positions elsewhere, even in Christian schools where stringent censorship is clearly defined, where they could enjoy academic freedom and the ability to teach the performing arts free of overbearing and ignorant administrators, dealing with artists who were asked to alter or change their programs AND burdened with the having to submit all scripts and scores for approval, to thankfully get a better job elsewhere and have to move their family from their roots in their church and this community, has been extremely painul. To see a video of a dance, performed to obscene lyrics, led by a dean, enjoyed by other faculty, videotaped by the school, reported by the Shorter television and broadcast on youtube, was a slap in the face of every performing arts faculty on that campus.
When the students complained, they were ignored. These same students were victims of this censorship. They had many opportunities taken from them due to the administrations new policies.
Mr. Arnold, please explain how this was allowed to happen. I'm sure you have a long-winded answer.
If you need to see it for yourself, you can search Shorter university flash mob and watch it for yourself.
Thanks, sir.