And The Ravens, They Are A-Cawin'

Anderson University is in the Chicago Tribune again, and no, it's not for our dance policy. A group of current students ages 21 and over decided to protest AU's alcohol policy yesterday during its 10 am chapel by marching down to a local bar, Kroakerheads, and having a very public drink, with local media and campus security there to observe. This march was prefaced the night before when members of the group scattered two garbage bags full of empty alcohol bottles across campus, which were cleaned up by campus police that same night. Harried school officials, blindsided by the swarm of local media attention, are currently holding talks with the student body about the alcohol policy, while condemning yesterday's demonstration. Through all of this, I can't help but think, do any of these students know how big an issue they're taking on?

Yes, Jesus did say, "John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and 'sinners.' But wisdom is proved right by all her children" (Luke 7:33-35). In other words, "Quit arguing, you chuckleheads. It's okay to drink (responsibly) and not to drink. To each his own! It's the other stuff that matters." This should not be a big, dualistic debate, although it's already leaning that way. This should not be a case of "us versus them." The actions of these students portrayed a lack of respect and trust for the administration, as well as a display of ill will. The administration should be given a chance to listen to students' concerns and respond to them before we assume the worst.

Second, I doubt that many realize that the administration's hands are tied anyway. Anderson University has a Board of Trustees that have the difficult task of making the big decisions to keep AU fiscally afloat. President Edwards and the Student Life staff are subject to the Board's decisions. They were hired by the university as enforcers; out of all these people only President Edwards is even on the Board. I would imagine that the individuals who met with students tonight are the hands and feet of the Board and not those who create the rules themselves. It is unfair to demonize these individuals or attack them, because they are responsible for executing the rules, but I doubt they could change them without the Board's support.

Third, this is not a Church of God school, but it is. Most of our scholarships come from Church of God members; this means that, while the Church of God no longer has its name on all the signs, in effect, it serves to financially "back" the university. What this means for students is that we are subject to the attitudes of the church and those of its members who choose to donate to endowments and building projects and the like. If this little shenanigan from yesterday upsets one of these individuals, he or she just might decide to end his or her support of the university, essentially leaving one or more of next year's students with more money to come up for school and in this struggling economy to boot. I have heard that the university actually crunched numbers for this and determined that student tuition would rise by seven thousand dollars. I would assume that would merely represent the loss to the budget and not even to scholarships themselves. These actions have consequences not only for those students who chose to demonstrate, but for those who did not.

Fourth, this issue is tied up in the history of the Church of God. As part of the Holiness movement, the Church of God has historically focused on the "you are called to be in the world, but not of the world" verse. The old dance policy was one example of this. The church believed that we were called to something higher, and this should be reflected by in our lives, which should be visibly focused on higher things than the corruption of the world. This included dancing, playing cards, watching movies, wearing make-up, and drinking alcohol. Thus was the Holiness movement was associated with the temperance movement. This unfortunately led to a system where, as many older Church of God members now say, "You were as holy as the number of buttons on your shirt." The Church of God does not officially condemn alcohol use anymore, but this does not negate an unspoken institutional policy still tinged with these attitudes. As such, the best of intentions have essentially demonized certain acts, et cetera, the last surviving form of this being seen in this stance on alcohol.

Fifth, lessening the severity of the alcohol policy opens the door for further abuse. Everyone knows that some AU students still abuse alcohol under the current policy, but those who may be turned off from partying by the strict policy and its harsh penalties might just be those who later go to excesses. If of-age students are allowed to get drunk off campus, they would pose a danger not only to themselves, but to those on the roads if these students choose to drive. If they return to campus, drunk students would inevitably cause disruptions in the dorms and across the main body of campus. This is not what we want, either.

Honestly, I think the administration's hands are tied. It's not a matter of students having no voice; I think it's more a matter of the Board of Trustees' understanding of the full financial effect of such a decision upon individual students, as well as the consideration of the possibilities of increased alcohol abuse by students. The current policy, however, is inadequate. There is no reason why alcohol in and of itself should be condemned, as it inherently is in this policy and the policy for faculty; the only problem with alcohol that is mentioned in the Bible is drunkenness. This is what we should try to control, and this is what the policy should restrict, not the legal and responsible use of alcohol by students and faculty, or the fault of being in the presence of such activity. Since such a change to the policy would still be nigh impossible, and students would still be likely to face further economic hardship, I think the best option at this point is for the policy to remain the same, although I still dislike it.