Grateful for critics, unafraid of controversy

By: Jake Morgan - Special to The Collegian

Posted: 4/23/09

Thank you, Nathan Britton. Thank you, Calvin Freiburger, Danielle Larsen, Joel Gehrke and thank you, Kyle Smith.

To them, I am a "leftist" (or "anarchist") who seeks, with my "flawed knowledge of history," to undermine the "eternal foundations" of the college and, as such, am bound to suffer the "punishment of eternal fire." If you can say anything about these individuals, though, it is that they have, in the words of Kyle Smith, a citadel to defend. They have an idea of place, of belief, of home.

Do I agree with these individuals? Certainly not. I believe their paradigm to be deeply concerning, and antithetical to both this college and a broader concept of human worth. In every case, though, I would prefer a vigilant opposition, an alternative proposition (antithesis), than a complete lack of a thesis embodied by the apathetic, or, far worse, the "rationale" of this campus.

Rational prudence represents nothing less than the complete and utter lack of belief. "Belief" here is some set of core ideology, Weaver's metaphysical rock, if you will, or personal axioms that reject out of hand the concept of compromise. Now, my ranting against on-campus recruitment or support of a gay-straight alliance is not my metaphysical rock per se, but is a manifestation of that same ideal, the physical realization of my thesis. When one is prepared to surrender that ground to the circumstance of the moment, by way of taking the middle of the road, or agreeing to disagree, that ground is forever lost to the shifting sands of the temporal. There can be no belief, no person (as a distinction from the animal), within the "icy waters of egotistical calculation" that prudence presupposes.

There is a reason Josh Turner's "Long Black Train" is heading to "the middle of nowhere." The wasteland of pragmatism embodies the greatest enemy of the "liberal arts" or, indeed, any philosophical system that posits inherent human worth. We may have our disagreements over the mission of the college, but I believe we can agree that the founders sought to anchor the college in something beyond on the temporal - some meaning, spirit or capital "T" Truth.

In the recent GSA debacle, anyone with a modicum of true ideology should have been disappointed with the philosophical backsliding of almost everyone involved. The refusal of the Office of Student Affairs to either grant or deny the alliance official status has put discussion of the college's identity back in the closet, as it were, and instead attempted to meld together advocacy and politics in the name of expedience.

The embarrassing backpedaling of the Classical Liberal Organization, putting up ridiculous acronyms instead of principles and criticizing one of the clearest (and accurate) Collegian articles in recent history undermined the philosophical legitimacy of the organization, while confusing the campus. The rhetoric from internal CLO meetings, though, provides the clearest case in point. Holding the constitution of the organization aloft, the coordinator reminded us that it was only a "piece of paper," and that "in the face of approaching tanks," such a guide of principle was useless. If principle is useless in the face of rationality, then perhaps it is time to turn our bended knee to the Central Planning Board, because the oxymoron of rational individualism cannot hold.

If you want to learn about the Mission of Hillsdale or Tradition in general, go talk to Dr. Bob Blackstock, or ask Dr. Birzer to send you his convocation address.

I don't claim to hold a monopoly on knowledge in that category and, as a student, am still perfecting my understanding of our identity. I do, however, claim ground to my argumentation, something to anchor my understanding of the world to. Before we damn The Collegian for "[creating] controversy where there is none," perhaps we should ask why we fear controversy.

The only way to avoid controversy is to surrender belief to the gods of compromise, substitute prudence for individuality and to annihilate any understanding of the "Good, True and Beautiful." The adoption of prudence is the confusion of the soul, the infection of relativism. In some traditions, it is called sin.

I opened this article with a list of peers I still consider intellectual adversaries. In a larger sense though, and I hope they would agree, we are philosophical comrades against the modernist tendency that would have us destroy any idea of right, any concept of belief.

It is on that common ground we will take our stand.