Page 5 – The Waltonian

In a speech during Eastern’s 2016 convocation service, Josephine Templeton announced that her family would be giving Eastern University $5 million towards the construction of a new Templeton building. Eastern will work to raise matching funds. The plan is for the new building to be built opposite Walton Hall, directly on the other side of Walton Pond. This building will provide space for classroom learning, office work, study, social interaction and maybe even worship.

Jonathan Yonan, dean of the Templeton Honors College, says that he envisions the new Templeton building as a “facility that will be good for both Eastern and the Templeton Honors College.” For example, Dr. Yonan describes his hope that the building will provide seminar-style rooms that are egalitarian rather than hierarchical in design, meaning that students and the professor sit around a table, facing each other, with no head of the room or head of the table to impose a sense of authority. While most of the Templeton courses would find a home in this building, Yonan thinks that the seminar-style classrooms would lend themselves well to other courses in departments like English and Biblical Studies and that the building could be a place where “teachers love to teach and students love to learn.”

Regarding the new building and the generosity of the Templetons, Jessica Nielsen, a senior history major, says: “Dr. Jack Templeton’s legacy lives on in many ways, including this kind gift from his wife Dr. Josephine. We all as students have benefitted so much already from the Templetons’ generosity, and I’m touched that through this latest philanthropic gift, students will have the opportunity to study in a place dedicated to beauty, truth and the pursuit of the good. It is my hope that there, students will always find a quiet place to work, a friend with whom to argue and an environment conducive to the cultivation of the love of wisdom.”

Emmie Moffitt, a junior studying philosophy, says: “I believe that the Templeton building will be of great educational benefit to the members of the Honors College and indeed for all Eastern University students. It seems to me that having somewhere beautiful to learn has the potential to make beautiful the thinking and conversations taking place there. We have seen this again and again during casual study sessions in Baird Library and classes in the Fowler Great Hall; to have an entire building dedicated to this will be wonderful.”

As a community at Eastern University, we as students are excited to see how these exciting plans unfold. The Waltonian will be sure to keep readers updated on the process of raising funds and on the timetable for construction of the new building.

Source: Jonathan Yonan

Eastern University recently announced a new partnership with Wycliffe Bible Translators USA, the largest Bible translation organization in the world. Through this partnership, Wycliffe employees and missionaries, as well as their spouses and dependents, will qualify for a 20 percent discount on tuition.

Wycliffe has been helping people around the world translate the Bible into their own languages for over 70 years. In addition to Bible translation, Wycliffe also helps with language development, literacy and other spiritual and physical needs. Established in 1917 by missionary William Cameron Townsend, Wycliffe published its first Bible translation in 1952. In 2000, Wycliffe celebrated the publication of its 500th Bible translation. Wycliffe translators still have an estimated 1,800 languages in need of a Bible translation. With this in mind, they plan to have a translation project begun in every one of these languages by 2025.

Mumia Parham, Executive Director of Strategic Partnerships and Alliances at Eastern University, comments that Eastern is “excited to extend our tuition discount program to Wycliffe,” stating that Eastern is “dedicated to preparing our graduates for thoughtful and productive lives of Christian faith, leadership and service.” Parham hopes that through this partnership Eastern can make an “impact globally as we watch God’s ultimate plans unfold.”

Aileen Agoncillo, Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships at Wycliffe, also comments on the partnership. Wycliffe recognizes that Eastern is “not simply an institution for academics,” but is rather “a place committed to the formation of people to have an impact on society, the Church and the world.” Thus, Wycliffe is “grateful to partner with Eastern University to allow our global workforce an opportunity to continue their formation, so they too will have a deepened impact among the communities we serve.”

Eastern University currently manages more than 122 partnerships with organizations ranging from Fortune 500 companies to nonprofits across the greater Philadelphia, Harrisburg and Pittsburgh areas. The Eastern-Wycliffe partnership includes three undergraduate programs, 10 graduate programs and the doctorate in ministry. This partnership is set to run through Jan. 31, 2018.

Sources: eastern.edu, wycliffe.org

Dear fellow students, we are not here today because of our own merits alone. Our being here is an undeserved gift from God. There are hundreds of thousands of other young people in our nation and around the world who, possessing an equal or greater measure of our intellect and virtue, nevertheless are denied this gift of a college education due to economic deprivation.

Dutch scholar Abraham Kuyper writes that we who have been blessed with the opportunity to be full-time students have “received this great favor from our God.” In light of this, Kuyper says, “Woe to you and shame on you if you do not hear God’s holy call in the field of scholarship and do not exult with gratitude and never-ending praise that it pleased God out of free grace to choose you as his instrument for this noble, uplifting, inspiring calling.” If we truly embrace these sobering words, we will enter this school year in a state of profound humility and gratitude, as indeed we ought to do every year. If we consider how great a blessing we are receiving, we will see our education as demanding from us a lifetime of service, for anything less would be to squander God’s gift.

Whom shall we serve? Ours is not the task of changing the world, a charge never given to us by our Savior. We are not called to save humanity or even to love it, for indeed humanity is only an abstract concept. Rather, we must love those with whom we interact daily. St. Theophan the Recluse says that our question “what shall I do with my life?” was already answered when we “expressed the desire to stand at the level of human dignity.” That is to say, what we ought to do is what every human being ought to do, and that is the work right in front of us that needs to be done. St. Theophan writes that we need not think that we must “undertake important and great labors, whether for heaven, or…in order to make one’s contribution to humanity.” Rather, we need only aspire to do “that which presents itself to each one according to the circumstances of his life, and which is demanded by the individual events with which each of us meets. That is all.” What a sweet unburdening is found in these wise words, my friends.

Fellow students, let us endeavor to enter this school year filled with humble gratitude. Let us not fall prey either to the despair that says our work for others is not significant, nor the hubris that says it is world-changing. Rather, let us love and serve all those whom God has placed in our lives, and let us be ever diligent in our studies. Truly, to love well and study diligently is the work that God has seen fit to give us in this blessed season of our life.

Sources: AnotherCity.org, letterstotheexiles.com

Education initiatives for a demographic that some would label as “ex-offenders” are often met with skepticism or even hostility. Why should we have a special focus on people who betrayed society through criminal activity? If those who broke the law are denied opportunities for higher learning, isn’t that just a natural consequence of their actions? Can education even have a positive influence on people who have spent time in prison?

As an institution of higher learning, Eastern University has answered rather emphatically that yes, education can be of positive benefit, and even further, reducing barriers to higher education for “returning citizens” is a moral imperative. On Friday, June 10, President Robert G. Duffett and Executive Vice President Thomas Ridington represented Eastern University at the White House. Joining 24 other colleges, Eastern has opted to participate in President Obama’s Fair Chance Higher Education Pledge, committing to reducing barriers to higher education for individuals with criminal records, including individuals who were formerly incarcerated. Each year, approximately 600,000 inmates are released from prison. Vice President Ridington, in a statement regarding Eastern’s new pledge, mentioned that this initiative is in keeping with the school’s mission to equip students for a life of service. In addition, this pledge demonstrates Eastern’s dedication to the outworking of the Gospel particularly as it pertains to social justice. Here are three reasons why Eastern’s commitment is an excellent decision that should be applauded:

First, this commitment is perfectly in keeping with Eastern’s mission statement, which includes an affirmation of its dedication to justice. Regarding this affirmation, Eastern’s website states the following: “In our commitment to sharing the whole Gospel to the whole world, we acknowledge with sorrow the brokenness of the world at personal, national and international levels. Thus we seek to work for Christian transformation, justice and reconciliation in all areas of life as these are grounded in our understanding of Christ’s calling to us. We particularly seek to work with and for the poor, oppressed and suffering persons, as part of our Christian discipleship.”

Second, the Christian tradition has always recognized that education goes hand in hand with spiritual growth and redemption. In a college commencement speech he gave inside a prison, Cardinal Dolan said, “In our interior life we locate reason, thinking, loving; we find character, value and virtue; and we nurture, strengthen and develop this interior life by study, reasoning, solid reading, questioning, wondering, education.” Education equips returning citizens with the foundation needed to grow as human beings.

Third and finally, education makes economic sense. Vocational training or college education opens the door to greater access to employment, and employment is a huge factor in reducing reincarceration. Returning citizens who are employed are much less likely to reoffend (reducing the taxpayer burden to sustain their prison duration), and employed returning citizens actually help society through meaningful work and the paying of taxes.

Sources: CardinalDolan.org, eastern.edu

Eastern University president Dr. Duffett wrote an article in August for the Philadelphia Inquirer arguing for the inclusion of private colleges in Hillary Clinton’s plan for free college. Clinton’s proposed New College Compact ensures free tuition at four-year public colleges for every student whose family’s annual earnings are $85,000 or less, with that amount growing to $125,000 by 2021. While this plan is heralded as providing free college, “free” actually means subsidized by wealthy taxpayers. Sadly, the plan would not necessarily be as just or as effective at diminishing inequality as advocates would have you believe, as evidenced by the following three points:

First, under this plan taxpayers will be paying to subsidize all of the college bill for a large number of families who could afford to pay at least some of that bill, which is hardly fair to those taxpayers. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the average household income in 2014 was $53,657. Clinton’s plan would ensure free tuition, not just for all of the students in a median American family, but also for a significant number of Americans who make more than that median amount but still less than $85,000. Her plan would cover students whose family earns $31,343 above the median household income. The Census Bureau reports that there was an increase in the median income of less than $5,000 from 2013 to 2014 (in keeping with a decade of little growth), so even assuming the median were to increase by $5,000 each year from 2014 to 2021, by 2021, families earning $36,343 more than the average American family would qualify for free tuition. Under this plan, by 2021, wealthy taxpayers would have to pay the entire college bill for families who could potentially be making close to $36,000 more than the average American family.

Second, research suggests that taxpayers would be subsidizing a large percentage of students who will never complete their degree. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that an astonishing 42 percent of students who enroll at public colleges do not complete their degree. Clinton plans to force wealthy Americans to pay for the college education of thousands of students who will not finish their degree–students who will have no economic incentive to value an education they will not be paying to receive.

Finally, in a report for Brookings Institute entitled “Who would benefit most from free college?”, analyst Matthew Chingos reports on his research, which finds that free college benefits higher-income families more than low-income families to the tune of a $16 billion dollar value versus $13.5 billion. This disparity is because even without tuition, students must still pay significant expenses such as housing for residents or transportation for commuters, as well as textbooks. Thus, while the burden for paying for free college would unequally rest on wealthier Americans, this subsidization would still not solve income inequality.

While the plan for “free” college sounds great initially, there are reasons to question the merits of this particular plan. When examined closely, forcing one small demographic to pay for the education of everyone else might actually be an injustice.

Sources: Brookings Institute, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau

Lecrae finished his opening songs and then began to talk. “It’s not about me,” he said. “I’m like the moon: the moon doesn’t have any light in itself, it just reflects the Sun.” And that’s when I totally freaked out because I realized he was going to perform Background, my favorite of his songs, and one that I have completely memorized. I may have gotten a press pass to attend the concert as a journalist but, well, when Lecrae is rapping songs you love, you rap along and feel like a rebel.

If you ask anyone who attended the Lecrae concert on March 11 what they thought, you’ll likely hear words like “awesome” and “lit.” Actually, I heard all that and more from my friends. One such friend was so energetic that he bounced up and down faster than Tigger from Winnie-the-Pooh at the concert; after the concert, he flew up the hill to Guffin and raced around the hallway. But as lit as much of the concert was, it wasn’t enough for Lecrae, who told us that we needed a “lesson in litness” before proceeding to get everyone waving their hands ecstatically in the air. “Guilt is knowing you made a mistake. Shame is feeling you are a mistake. But grace is knowing God has forgiven your mistakes,” Lecrae said. And then he added, “Some of you can’t dance. You don’t have rhythm. Your arms are flailing. But you don’t need to feel guilty or ashamed because we forgive you.” And then we danced, and dare I say we danced as unto the Lord.

The thing I respect about Lecrae is that he’s not just a good performer, but he is also a leader. Part of being a good leader is sharing about the lessons you’ve had to learn. At one point, Lecrae shared about his college years when he was conceited and didn’t know how to talk to women with respect. One such time, Lecrae had tried to win a girl’s number, but she got his number instead and said maybe she’d call. He ended up waiting for hours for her call; his phone rang and he answered, “Hello, baby…wait, Mom?!”

Lecrae is a master at comedic timing, and he emphasized the humor in the interest of keeping the concert light. Underlying that story is a sense of gravity; learning what it means to be a godly man is serious. After telling his story he addressed the audience saying, “You think you are the man. But you’re not the man. You live in a dorm…with a stranger…and you’re still sleeping in bunk beds as adults. You’re still dependent on that package from mom.” The audience clapped and laughed: a comedic zinger was also an important rebuke of our narcissism.

Christian hip-hop is like mainstream hip-hop, in that the artists boast about what they love. Whereas mainstream artists often rap about money, fancy cars, and beautiful women, Christian artists like Lecrae are something of an anomaly because they boast of their own weaknesses and the loving strength of Jesus. Hip-hop is often an inherently aggressive art form both musically and lyrically, and that means that Lecrae’s songs often serve as a strong kick in the pants.

It’s fun to feel the bass reverberating through my chest, but that’s not ultimately why the concert was so great. It was great because Jesus’ name was proclaimed and we were reminded that the solar system does not revolve around us. Lecrae’s concert was excellent because in the end, it wasn’t about me, but it also wasn’t even about him. We are the moon: it is the Son’s light that makes us truly lit.

Spotlight, a Best Picture Grammy nominee, tells the devastating but true story of the Boston Globe Spotlight team that broke the story in 2002 of the Catholic Church’s cover up of priests sexually abusing children. Here’s the story this team of journalists explored: a prominent leader in the Catholic Church knowingly shuffles around sexually abusive priests from parish to parish for decades. Meanwhile, a cottage industry arises wherein lawyers get fat paychecks as the Catholic Church spends an egregious amount of money quietly settling lawsuits from victims outside of court and protecting itself from the public eye through confidentiality agreements. This is the kind of breakout story that wins journalists public accolades and awards, increases readership, and expands the subscriber base. Yet this team, at least as the film portrays them, did not think about the story in the terms I described above. No one mentions personal fame as a motivation; no one gets giddy with the thought of bringing down the Church; no one fantasizes about doubling the subscriber base. The sense we get as viewers is that the team truly cared about the city of Boston and the people of Boston, so they knew this was a story that needed to be told.

It is a profoundly mature film: there are no sordid scenes and even the testimony of adult survivors is relatively restrained and brief. Rather than dwell on the horrific details of the crimes, the film prefers to show us the grown men weeping onscreen, forcing us to reflect on the long-term effects of these crimes and mourn the tragedy of broken lives and lost faith.

That lamenting of lost faith was a welcome surprise for me. It would have been easy for the film to demonize religion, but it does not. And while the film is, in some ways, shaped as a narrative of the ragtag local paper against the “big, bad Catholic Church,” the film is carefully nuanced in divorcing the Catholic religion from the human institution of the Church and to place the blame on the latter rather than the former. At one point, Robby, a reporter on the Spotlight team, reflects that, having been a lapsed Catholic (it’s Boston–many people grew up Catholic), he had secretly thought that one day he might return to the Church, but now, after working on this story, he can’t see himself returning–and so he grieves. A little while later in the film, Robby stands just inside the door of a church during a Christmas service where the children of the parish are gathered in the front to sing Silent Night, and Robby cries; I cried with him.

I think Spotlight is the most compelling depiction of good journalism that I have ever seen in a film. When I say good, I do not refer just to the quality of the writing or the strong dedication to confirming sources; I refer also to the ethical nature of the reporting itself and also the ethical compassion of the team of writers.

Likewise, Spotlight, as a film, is decidedly compassionate. Rather than smearing the Church or attacking religion, the film chooses to explore a pivotal moment in our American consciousness with intelligence and grace, thereby shining a light on the darkness of evil and the tragedy of stolen faith. I left the theater feeling sorrowful but also grateful that this story has been told and told well.

She was number 27 and they called her the Devil’s child. She, a girl of only three years old, lived in an orphanage in Sierra Leone, West Africa. Her father was killed by rebel soldiers, and her mother died of starvation, choosing to feed her daughter instead. She was just a little orphaned girl and they called her the Devil’s child.

One day, three-year-old Michaela DePrince (born Mabinty Bangura) discovered a magazine with a ballerina on the cover. Of that day, DePrince says, “I was just so fascinated by this person, by how beautiful she was, how she was wearing such a beautiful costume, so I ripped the cover off and I put it in my underwear.” She didn’t know what ballet was at the time, but she was inexplicably haunted by that image which came to represent a pathway to a life of happiness.

A couple from the United States adopted Michaela, enabling her to pursue a career in ballet. In 2012, at the age of 17, she had her first major debut in Johannesburg, and she has since continued to win international acclaim for her ballet performances.

I was struck by the way in which Michaela was able to glimpse her humanity through art. In this case, the ballerina who did not dance on the page danced nevertheless in the spirit of an orphan girl. And as she watched the dance, Beauty, who is our Mother, whispered to this girl, “You are not the Devil’s child. You belong to me, and are precious in my sight.” It is not that art transformed her from the devil’s child to Michaela: she was never just a number. No, art revealed to this precious little girl that she was a human being, born with dignity, worthy of happiness.

As a ballerina, Michaela now works to affirm the humanity of all who watch her dance. As a dancer, she says to us, “This is my body, given for you”, for she does what my body does not know how to do. And she dances to bring me delight, yes, but also to awaken in me a transcendent wonder. She says to me, “This is your body,” for in her body, I see my own. She who is other than me is also me, for we each share one humanity. Though we vary as individuals, the significance behind the ballerina’s leap is universally accessible for her, for me, for you.

This then, is the spiritual nature of art: we share in meaning together, regardless of our differences. Art is not a religious creed that might somehow mark the divide between orthodoxy and heresy. Art is not tribal paint that tells you that you belong to this tribe as opposed to that one. Art isn’t even a prayer book that issues forth from one religious tradition and may or may not translate over into the worship of another tradition. Art belongs to all of us.

As a spiritual experience, every time we celebrate a work of art – whether a dance at a recital in McInnis Auditorium or a film that will be honored at the Oscars this year – we are celebrating our commonness, our humanity, and we are testifying together that we are other, and yet we are the same.

Artists are not out of touch with the world. The dancer has her feet planted on the ground and feels the earth shifting under the violence of man killing man. The musician has his ear tuned to the cries of the children whose parents are separating. Art doesn’t ask us to pretend that the Iraqi monastery wasn’t burned by ISIS. Art is not even an invitation to escape into a world where death is not waiting for each of us. And yet it is through the work of the artist and our shared delight in that work that we proclaim with confidence that the world is good, that humanity is good, that transcendence is good.

Do not forget, dear friends, that darkness does not overcome light, that church bells are still ringing, that little girls with flowers in their hair are still smiling, that the potter and the bookbinder and the painter and the chef continue to practice their craft. Art belongs to us, the orphan and the mother, the sinner and the saint: it is our shared heritage, a treasure given to us to delight in, cherish, and love. And when we learn to love art, we learn also to love each other and ourselves.

Colleges and universities have long been considered hotbeds of social activism, to the exultation of some and the frustration of others. Social movements often find support amidst college students — fledgling civic members who are spending hours upon hours learning to understand America’s history and politics. So it comes as no surprise that in 2015, grassroots responses to institutional racism and the wave of recent changes in our understanding of sexuality gained momentum on college campuses. For readers and viewers of the major American media outlets, all eyes were on these campuses — Missouri, Yale, Claremont McKenna, Wheaton, Liberty, just to name a few — as movements and events on campuses repeatedly made headline news. Waltonian news editor Ryan Klein and staff writer Anthony Barr recap the biggest college news stories of 2015 and how to make sense of them moving forward.

The university has, historically, been a place where free inquiry and free speech allow students and faculty to wrestle with the past, seek to understand the present, and prepare for the future. In 2015, a series of student protests led to discussions of race and identity and stirred up a debate about the state of free speech on college campuses.

For example, after a fairly innocuous email sent by Claremont McKenna College’s dean of students Mary Spellman to a Latina student, students protested and initiated a hunger strike that led to Spellman’s (forced) resignation. The offense? Spellman’s statement that she would work to serve those students who “don’t fit our CMC mold.” In The Forum, CMC’s student paper, writer Christina Yoh clarifies that the email was the straw that broke the camel’s back: the discussion on race had started eight months prior when CMCers of Color (an on-campus student organization) approached administration with their concerns.

Near Halloween, Yale’s Intercultural Affairs Committee sent an email to students asking them to be sensitive and not wear offensive Halloween costumes. Erika Christakis, a lecturer and associate master of Yale’s Silliman College, wrote a response that gracefully argued for free speech and communal value-shaping as opposed to top-down directives. Students responded by surrounding her husband, Nicholas, to demand (with swearing and other inappropriate behavior) that he apologize for his wife’s email, which he would not do.

And who could forget the chaos at the University of Missouri when football players forced the President to resign by refusing to play any more games until he stepped down. This bold move was precipitated by a number of racially-charged incidents that the student body felt was not properly addressed.

Some have have looked on these demonstrations with concern over what is all too often social-justice-warfare driven less by rationality then by emotionalism. The Atlantic ran an article decrying “the coddling of the American mind” and the “movement” to “scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense.” Meanwhile The New Yorker asserted that there is not a crisis of free speech but rather that there is some “intense scrutiny from those just beyond the gates, eager to diagnose every gesture as some kind of larger trend.”

There is a long history of student protests on college campuses. Take, for example, the two-year student strike at the University of Paris in 1229 which was prompted after the death of several students who were being punished for rioting. In more recent history, consider the fight for free speech at the University of California, Berkeley in 1964-1965.

The conversations across college campuses in 2015 were part of the larger tapestry of contemporary public discourse on race in the United States. 2015 was the year of the Black Lives Matter movement; it was the year that Between the World and Me (which explores race by African-American author Ta-Nehisi Coates) won the National Book Award; it was the year that The Atlantic ran a cover-story on “The Black Family in the Age of Mass Incarceration”. If college students are perhaps not as good at participating in this conversation, they nevertheless shouldn’t be discouraged from trying to.

Regardless of whether 2015 was a year of crisis or not as pertains to campus activism, it also saw some fantastic insights on living in a pluralistic culture. Law Professor John Inazu writes of a confident pluralism: “Confidence reinforces the convictions we hold. Pluralism recognizes and reinforces the differences that exist.”

NYT columnist David Brooks writes: “The pluralist is committed to a philosophy or faith, but also to an ethnicity and also to a city, and also to a job and also to diverse interests and fascinating foreign cultures. These different commitments balance and moderate one another. A life in diverse worlds with diverse people weaves together into one humane, multifaceted existence. The rigidity of one belief system is forced to confront the messiness of work relationships or a neighborhood association.”

College campuses provide a beautiful transition space for young people to live in community with people who are vastly different than themselves. Our plurality can be divisive but it can also be enriching. For 2016, rather than getting sucked into the drama of identity-politics, perhaps it might behoove us to listen to wiser voices like Inazu and Brooks as we seek to navigate the microcosm that is college and the macrocosm that is our shared world.

Who knew red cups could cause such reactions? Starbucks’ red holiday cups have recently been in the news because some have interpreted their lack of Christmas imagery as evidence that Starbucks is waging a “war on Christmas.” Most of my friends have looked at this controversy with amusement, recognizing that it hardly qualifies as newsworthy. But what about situations that are more serious? When the public learns that a company financially supports a certain political cause or a leader of a company is outspoken about their political views, should consumers use this information to decide whether to support the company?

Ultimately, I think that the issue comes down to personal conscience. But we do have a moral obligation to develop informed consciences. Here are three questions to ask yourself when thinking through this issue:

1) Will continuing to patronize the business directly undermine my integrity?

Imagine that you are a dog trainer who doesn’t believe that horses should be ridden in competitive racing. If the pet company you buy dog food from is a sponsor of a horse race, continuing to buy dog food from the company probably won’t undermine your integrity. However, if you run a shelter for injured and retired racehorses, it likely would undermine your integrity to continue to buy horse supplies from the company—at least so long as the company is sponsoring the races.

2) Does the political affiliation have bearing on the product/service the company is providing?

Let’s say you’re a vegetarian and you find out that Company X donates $40,000 to a lobbying group that advocates for butchers. If Company X sells computers, this political affiliation, while upsetting to you personally, doesn’t have direct bearing on the company. However, if Company X sells vegan-meals-to-go, it would make sense to stop patronizing the business because the affiliation to the lobbying group fundamentally undermines the company. Likewise, if the CEO is found to have given money to the lobbying group, in the computers example, it wouldn’t have bearing, whereas in the vegan-meals example, it would make sense for the public to demand the CEO’s resignation.

3) Is my conscience sensitive to public discourse?

Civil public discourse is part of how we inform our personal consciences and, as a nation, how we shape our collective conscience. Through this discourse, we are educated about various injustices or social ills, and through this discourse we become sensitive to the plight of others. Whenever a public conversation erupts about a company or a company leader’s political affiliation, ask yourself if you are reacting rightly to the conversation. If you are indifferent, seek to understand why others care and ask yourself if you ought to care as well. If you have a strong opinion, seek to understand other opinions and, in doing so, be open to the reality that you might be wrong, and be willing to adjust your perspective. Even if you don’t end up changing your mind, this exercise in imagination will season your conversation with grace.

As a concluding thought, remember that through public conversation, a business might be convinced to rethink their stance or political affiliation. While I am not naïve enough to think that profit-driven businesses will always or even often change just because the public says they should, I do believe that persuasion is more beneficial than coercion. Rather than threatening to boycott the company if they don’t give in to your demands, a more loving way to operate within civic society is to try to persuade a company to change, an action that could be as simple as creating a hashtag on Twitter.