Axiom E-mail 1
I am the editor for the
student publication known as the Axiom. The Residence Life Department sponsored
an event during Week of Welcome known as Movie on the Lawn. The film shown was
50 first dates. The Motion Picture Association of America rated the film PG-13
because of "crude sexual humor and drug references." The film also contained
a significant amount of profanity. To show how racy the film is, the MPAA
originally rated the film "R" and changed their decision only after
appeal.
My question for you would be
this: Why does residence life support the viewing of profane, sexually
provocative, and drug-glamorizing material? If a student used the language
thrown around in this particular film, he or she would be written up for
violating the spirit of the community by failing to comply with the Community
Life Standards policy. Why is a congregated viewing of a profane and sexually
provocative film constructive towards community ends? Why would a student using
a single swear word destroy the spirit of the community any further than the
showing of this film? Your response to these particular questions would be
greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
William Penn
Editor for the Axiom
Resident Life E-mail 1
I have read through your
information provided in regards to the 2004 Movie on the Lawn "50 First
Dates". The university procedure on showing films to students mandates
that we do not show movies that are rated R by the MPAA. The Residence
Life office voted and previewed the film prior to the showing on August 24. The
version that was played for the students as provided by the MPAA copyright
company Swank Copyright Industry, in our opinion, did not violate the
university procedure. Thank you for sharing your opinion and we will continue
to make sure that all future films remain within the guidelines of what is appropriate
for the Friends University Community.
Resident Life E-mail 2 (after Nov/Dec issue was
released)
I would encourage any
individual who has questions about policies or community life standards to come
and speak with me about them. Engaging in a written debate, (emails back
and forth questioning and explaining policies,) is a very inefficient method of
dialogue, and as well as poor method for effecting the most beneficial change.
The written word is very easy to misinterpret, take out of context, trivialize,
and manipulate.
Anyone who does not understand or agree with any of
our policies is encouraged to either meet, or call me to discuss our
policies. For those who fear having their identity known, I can you
assure you that your anonymity will be respected.
Thanks,
Axiom
E-mail 2
I appreciate your
feedback immensely. I am convinced that if you speak with (edited by Axiom… gave away identity) or compare the e-mails in the
publication with those (edited by Axiom…
gave away identity) has on file in Microsoft Outlook, you will notice that
both the e-mails are printed exactly as they were sent.
If the Residence Life
Office has an issue with the accuracy of written interviews, (edited by Axiom… gave away identity)
should not have responded to our e-mail. However, I appreciate (edited by Axiom… gave away identity)
response and (edited by Axiom… gave away
identity) understanding that the criticism of policy enhances the
educational experience of students.
I reject the notion
that the written word is anymore easy to manipulate and take out of context
than the spoken word. When I copied and pasted (edited by Axiom… gave away identity) e-mail, I was 100 percent sure
that I quoted (edited by Axiom… gave away
identity) directly and exactly. Since I provided the entire e-mail, which
you should have a record of, the notion that anything was taken out of context
is quite absurd.
In all honesty, (edited by Axiom… gave away identity), do
you really expect me to believe that you would protect students’ anonymity,
when I suspect that you were so intolerant that you confiscated all of our
publications from the Green Residence Hall? My staff and I went out of our way
to adhere to the Community Life Standards policy. Explain to me why you threw
away our publications, and I will consider asking you policy questions in
person. Until then, it seems you cannot be trusted.
Thanks for your input,
William Penn
Editor for the Axiom
Resident
Life E-mail 3
I believe in Friends Universities policies. If
you would like to discuss this, please call me. I removed the The Axiom because it was counterproductive to community in
Green Hall. If you would like to discuss this, please call or come meet
with me. I am not an intolerant individual. Our profanity policy
makes sense, as does our enforcement of the policy, and neither our office nor
the University is hypocritical. Your article about Dry Campus had some serious
errors I disagree with. I would like to speak with you about all of these
issues, so I would hope that you would please call me, or come
meet with me.
Because I do sincerely
want every student to understand our policies, and I sincerely want to try my
hardest to make sure every student loves living on campus, I will try to
explain why I do not wish to engage in a written debate. (It will be
simpler to outline this one thing, than to explain everything in the previous
paragraph.) I will offer three examples to try and illustrate my point in hopes
that you will then be willing to meet with me.
1.) In my experience as a
Resident Manager, there have been many times when misunderstandings have come
about as a result of communication. Sometimes it may be as simple as
someone making a statement, a statement which they think is clear and easily
understood, and then having someone question or challenge that statement
because they have gotten the wrong idea.
I have had several
meetings with students, where the student misunderstands what I am saying and
then goes to a third party with incorrect information from the initial meeting.
(This third party may be a parent, school official, another student,
etc.) When the three of us then sit down to meet, and I again say what I
said in the first meeting, the misunderstanding is always cleared up. My
message does not change, but my delivery may change so the student is able to
understand better. They are able to say, "Oh. (edited by Axiom… gave away identity) did indeed say A, B, and C in both
meetings, but when he said it the first time, I thought he was saying X,
Y, Z.”
My point is that in
verbal communication, it is much easier to convey ones thoughts, have a person
verify that they understand what you are saying, and then offer possible
further explanations or clarifications if necessary. If misunderstandings
can occur with verbal communication, how much more so with written?
2. In your email
you made several lengthy arguments concerning (edited by Axiom… gave away identity) emailed response to your
flyer. The problem with written communication is that it leaves a lot of
room for speculation, ambiguity and assumption.
You wrongly assumed that
I had a problem with the emails printed in The Axiom, and you wrote an entire
response without addressing my concerns about written communication. I
trusted The Axiom when it said that it had printed the emails in their
entirety. In my last email to you, the concerns I had with written
communication are the ones I am talking about now. The assumption you made can
occur very easily when an individual is relying only on written
communication. What is particularly damaging and frustrating is when
someone prints and distributes their assumptions for others to read.
The difference between
written and verbal communication, is that in written communication, a lot of
interpretation is left up to the reader. In verbal communication, tone,
inflection, body language, etc all send messages to
help clarify the meaning of the words.
3. In The Axiom you suggested that the Residence Life office did
not answer your questions from your email. Now presuming benevolence on
the part of all individuals involved, one would say that you wrote an email to
the Residence Life office with objections about the profanity policy. Rather
than just state, “I have objections with the profanity policy, and the
hypocritical way Residence Life shows movies with profanity,” you instead made
the critiques you did, with the questions you did; (asking two questions about
why we showed the movie, and one question about the profanity policy and the
film.)
Again assuming
benevolence, one would say that even though the Residence Life office tried to
answer what it perceived to be the heart of your question, (Why did we show the
movie we did?) you were justifiably frustrated because you felt like we didn’t
answer your questions.
If this is the case, then
it only proves my previous argument about ambiguity and assumptions.
However, all people are
not benevolent. And in written communication it is very easy to
manipulate people’s words. In written communication, a response is able
to be interpreted, or presented in various ways, and then framed in such a way
as to present a specific view, or support a certain agenda.
I must say I find it
curious why you did not be very direct about your questions about “50 First
Dates.” Your initial email was read by multiple individuals. The automatic
consensus was that it seemed to be primarily attacking the decision to show the
movie. That is why our response explained why we showed the movie.
However, when you frame
your email in the context of the article, and put ours following your email, it
seemed to suggest that you had asked a simple question, and we had dodged the
question.
In all honesty I do not
know if this is what you were intending to do. It does seem as if you have made
strong efforts to adhere to Community Life Standards. I appreciate that very
much. I also think that there were several very humorous and helpful
articles in the first issue, (though I did think that it was inconsiderate of
the efforts of the Crimson Chronicle.) I also found the recent article about Squirrel Land to be quite clever.
Again, I am not saying
you were intending to manipulate our words with the Residence life article, but
I hope you can see that this last example proves that this is very possible to
do.
This sums up some of the
reasons I am reluctant to engage in a written debate.
Lastly let me say that I
did not destroy your copies of the latest Axiom. I removed them (and
still have them,) until I could read over them and make sure they were not
offensive.
My primary concern with
the Axiom is that it is an anonymous publication which insults university staff
and officials. (Most people would find the charge of hypocrisy very
insulting. The fact that you wrote an article defending the use of “FU”
to prove that you are not a hypocrite seems to suggest you don’t want to be
thought of as a hypocrite either.) This is highly destructive to
community. Friends is a Christian institution
interested in forming individuals of virtue, integrity, and character. Allowing
individuals to insult others anonymously demonstrates none of these.
However, The Axiom
clearly has some very real merit. It encourages critical thinking, has creative
and humorous writing, helps the University critically asses itself and possible
areas of improvement, and encourages student activism.
For this reason, it
offers benefit to the community as an opinion based journal. But opinion
requires identity, other wise it is just an attack piece. If you are willing to
put your name on the journal, then I will return The Axiom to the Green Hall
lobby. If you have nothing to fear, (are not planning on breaking any
policies in the future, because you haven’t broken any major ones yet,) then
there is no reason to remain anonymous.
I hope you have a good
holiday break, and God Bless.
