There is a perception among campus leadership that sexual activity, drug use, and alcohol consumption are on the rise on campus. For better or for worse, the issue is here to stay, and I think it helpful to unpack some of the various natural responses thereto. There are two levels of legislation at Principia that pertain to these three issues. Firstly, we have Policy 22, penned by Principia founder Mary Kimball Morgan during a period of ideological inquiry into the shape she wanted Principia to take. This policy states, “Since smoking, the use of intoxicating liquor, and loose social conduct are inconsistent with the teachings of Christian Science, they must be eliminated from the experience of members of the Principia community.” Secondly, we have the community standards, in which two items in our code of conduct encourage “living completely free from the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other recreational drugs,” and “abstaining from pre-marital and extramarital sexual relations, and from homosexual activity.”
When it comes to dealing with concerns about these issues, it is useful to keep this two-tiered legislative structure in mind. On the one hand, we have in Policy 22 an ideological piece of legislation that can inform us as to why we take the stance that we do. On the other, we have the community standards, which inform us precisely where we draw the line behaviorally. Students develop a number of different responses to issues taken with these standards. Firstly, one could just ignore the standards and act as one pleases. This is clearly problematic when one signs a statement agreeing to submit to the standards. Secondly, one could stifle one’s challenge with the standard, and uphold one’s contract to the standard. Thirdly, one could dig into the ideological rationale behind the standard, and either acquiesce to the principles revealed, or come to some reasoned challenge to the ideology of the standard.
It is the first response, whereby people clearly flout standards, that has campus leadership concerned. Especially when this behavior is flaunted publicly, it leads to a sense of disrespect for the standards that is unhealthy in a very specific way: when we simply choose to ignore the rules, we miss the important discussion that comes out of asking questions of the rules. That is, we lose sight of Policy 22, and get hung up in the community standard. The rules are in place for a reason. If the rules themselves present a challenge, a responsible way to engage with this challenge is to examine the reason for the rule.
When we simply ignore standards, we compromise our own integrity. There are many ways to take a stand. Most obviously, one can come to some agreement with the standards and uphold them. For those of us for whom that does not work, there are a number of options. We can choose non-participation, and, as one friend of mine recently did, elect to leave the community, in favor of a community where we can agree with the rules. However, just leaving does not necessarily push the dialogue forward. If many people are, for instance, drinking on campus, it seems necessary to discuss the reasons for this. We ought question why that standard does not feel relevant for those in opposition, and encourage more positive engagement with the conversation we have about community standards.
If we are going to challenge these community standards, we need to look at Policy 22, and question very specifically whether Mrs. Morgan is correct in claiming that these actions are truly inconsistent with the teachings of Christian Science. This is a long and complex inquiry, and one that if not well moderated can be incredibly divisive. However, if we want to challenge the standards, it is participation in discussion, and not the odd casual beer, that forms an appropriate action.There is a perception among campus leadership that sexual activity, drug use, and alcohol consumption are on the rise on campus. For better or for worse, the issue is here to stay, and I think it helpful to unpack some of the various natural responses thereto. There are two levels of legislation at Principia that pertain to these three issues. Firstly, we have Policy 22, penned by Principia founder Mary Kimball Morgan during a period of ideological inquiry into the shape she wanted Principia to take. This policy states, “Since smoking, the use of intoxicating liquor, and loose social conduct are inconsistent with the teachings of Christian Science, they must be eliminated from the experience of members of the Principia community.” Secondly, we have the community standards, in which two items in our code of conduct encourage “living completely free from the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other recreational drugs,” and “abstaining from pre-marital and extramarital sexual relations, and from homosexual activity.”
When it comes to dealing with concerns about these issues, it is useful to keep this two-tiered legislative structure in mind. On the one hand, we have in Policy 22 an ideological piece of legislation that can inform us as to why we take the stance that we do. On the other, we have the community standards, which inform us precisely where we draw the line behaviorally. Students develop a number of different responses to issues taken with these standards. Firstly, one could just ignore the standards and act as one pleases. This is clearly problematic when one signs a statement agreeing to submit to the standards. Secondly, one could stifle one’s challenge with the standard, and uphold one’s contract to the standard. Thirdly, one could dig into the ideological rationale behind the standard, and either acquiesce to the principles revealed, or come to some reasoned challenge to the ideology of the standard.
It is the first response, whereby people clearly flout standards, that has campus leadership concerned. Especially when this behavior is flaunted publicly, it leads to a sense of disrespect for the standards that is unhealthy in a very specific way: when we simply choose to ignore the rules, we miss the important discussion that comes out of asking questions of the rules. That is, we lose sight of Policy 22, and get hung up in the community standard. The rules are in place for a reason. If the rules themselves present a challenge, a responsible way to engage with this challenge is to examine the reason for the rule.
When we simply ignore standards, we compromise our own integrity. There are many ways to take a stand. Most obviously, one can come to some agreement with the standards and uphold them. For those of us for whom that does not work, there are a number of options. We can choose non-participation, and, as one friend of mine recently did, elect to leave the community, in favor of a community where we can agree with the rules. However, just leaving does not necessarily push the dialogue forward. If many people are, for instance, drinking on campus, it seems necessary to discuss the reasons for this. We ought question why that standard does not feel relevant for those in opposition, and encourage more positive engagement with the conversation we have about community standards.
If we are going to challenge these community standards, we need to look at Policy 22, and question very specifically whether Mrs. Morgan is correct in claiming that these actions are truly inconsistent with the teachings of Christian Science. This is a long and complex inquiry, and one that if not well moderated can be incredibly divisive. However, if we want to challenge the standards, it is participation in discussion, and not the odd casual beer, that forms an appropriate action.
