Issue 3

THE VENTRILOQUIST Kimberly Prijatel, Editor-in-Chief

Issue 3

May 2011

Nathan Schirmer, Graphic & Layout Designer

The Ventriloquist is an independently-run, independently-funded student publication at Cedarville University. We accept well-written articles from anybody in the Cedarville community and publish them in hope that the reader will give each piece fair consideration.

Article ideas, questions and comments can be submitted to ventriloquistpaper@gmail.com

UNWORTHY

POWERS

TO REIGN:

a miltonic response to corporate tyranny By: Camy Sray

E

nglish poet John Milton was renowned for his fierce rhetorical intervention in the midst of the political and religious upheaval throughout the 17th century that undermined individual liberties, identifying the selfish acts of sovereigns as tyranny. In his polemical tract The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, Milton argues that the people must depose of a sovereign when, out of pure self-interest, he transgresses the personal liberties he was supposed to protect.

Milton directs his argument toward Charles I, the monarch whose selfish agenda injured the public welfare (and whose regicide Milton justifies in an extensive outline of transgressions in Eikonoklastes). Milton identifies a tyrant as “he who, regarding neither law nor the common good, reigns for himself and his faction.” Milton argues that all men are born free; but, since the first sin spawned discord, humans have sought a commonwealth to “bind each other from mutual injury” and “defend themselves against any that gave disturbance” to such agreement. The role of the king in this commonwealth is to “ordain authority that might restrain… what was violated against the peace.” However, Milton emphasizes that the king’s power is only “derivative”; the people invest him with power for “the common good of them all,” and he maintains that authority only in so far as he preserves the rights of the people.

Milton’s attack on tyrannical principles is so timeless that one can apply it to a contemporary context. Milton’s indictment on humanity’s tyrannical tendency to pursue self-interest at the cost of the common welfare extends beyond his temporal bounds, rendering his admonitions to regulate tyranny very relevant to today’s issue of corporate greed.

Milton asks in Tenure, “But to any civil power unaccountable” that engages in “violent actions,” “how can we submit as free men?” If Milton sees the potential of tyranny in any civil power, then his principles are valid in today’s economic realm. “Civil,” defined as “of, relating to, or designating a community, state, or body politic as a whole” (“Civil,” OED), encompasses the economic realm because a nation’s money circulation directly affects politics and the community. Also, hear-

kening back to Plato’s three-tiered model of the soul that relegates the human appetite to the lowest level, Milton conveys uncontrollable appetite as a result of sin in Paradise Lost, acknowledging it as an aspect of the human condition that will never change. Critic Shawcross says Milton “sees that the problem is not ever one of the here and now. It persists through all times, for Man is always victim of himself.”

Finding its beginning in the 1500s, the corporation initially did not have the same rights as individuals.

Thom Hartmann notes that the founding fathers intentionally excluded corporations and rights from the Declaration of Independence. Richard Robbins defines a corporation as “an invention of the state” in which the state permits “private financial resources to be used for a public purpose.” Through this corporate charter, groups of investors could accumulate private wealth while being protected from legal liability; the government, in exchange for setting these limits, required that corporations operate for the public benefit. Corporations were thus originated by the people, through state legislatures, to benefit the masses by creating and exchanging value amongst people. The 1886 case of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, however, drastically altered the function of corporations by granting them the same constitutional rights—the Bill of Rights, the fourteenth amendment, and civil rights laws —that the founding fathers set apart solely for human individuals. These rights include protection from searches, granting privacy of records that were previously public, and freedom of speech, which enables corporations to strike down federal regulations by lobbying.

Corporations thus gradually gained a foothold in state legislatures, “us[ing] their wealth to dominate public thought and discourse” (Robbins). Corporations exemplify Milton’s principles of tyranny; they came to possess the rights of individuals because of that very truth that fuels Milton’s indictment: humans indulge their appetites for power. Just as Milton argues that Charles used his authority “for his own ends,” not for “the good… of the people”, he may similarly argue that corporations do not properly use their power as a means for people to exchange value.

The practical manifestations of corporate tyranny are innumerous (and beyond the scope of this essay in providing exhaustive evidence), but a few that best convey Milton’s principles are exploitation of humans, animals and natural resources, and the uprooting of local businesses.

The proliferation of sweatshops and fast-food chains attest to corporate exploitation. From the average $1 per hour, 12 hours per day, seven days per week sweatshop conditions that an interviewee in Newsweek equated with “‘modern slavery’”, to meatpacking giants’ “raping of the land” and spawning of “a workforce of poor immigrants, high injury rates, and… rural ghettos in the American heartland”, corporations exalt cost-cutting efficiency that trumps ethical treatment of humans and animals. Corporations also uproot small, local businesses to consolidate their power. While corporations like Wal-Mart (who made $245 billion in 2002 while its average sales clerk made

a yearly income below the federal poverty line for a family of three) proliferate, they weed out local businesses and rob them of “their ability to generate value for themselves.” Rushkoff reveals that “for every two jobs created by a Wal-Mart store, the local community ended up losing three” (43).

Because tyrannical corporate practices continue to proliferate “out of sight, out of mind,” where average consumers cannot see production methods or listen to corporate boardroom discussions, the public remains largely ignorant of the gravity of corporate greed. For example, fast food has become so commonplace, people accept it as unavoidable and are “unaware of the… ramifications of their purchases”; similarly, 82% of American households make at least one purchase at Wal-Mart. Rushkoff sums up society’s passive acceptance of corporations: “We seek to prop up institutions whose very purpose remains to usurp” our ability “to generate wealth directly with one another”. In Tenure, Milton criticizes the English people who “cannot conceive of their land without a monarch” and suffer under his dominating power; similarly, many people today accept corporations as an inevitable byproduct of free enterprise, resigned to their Constitutionally cemented power. Just as Charles’ elite group of ministers paraded their power under the guise that they were trying to dispel heresies—when they themselves were the greatest heretics —so corporations have harnessed human rights under their control and say that regulations would be an imposing on their “rights.”

The potential to reform systems of corporate greed seems dismal because it is difficult to overcome their entitlement to individual rights in the Constitution.

Milton himself appeared to lose the idealistic momentum of his younger years in which he sought to reform on the institutional level; but as he grew older, he put his hope in the power of the individual. Milton hoped his idea that authorities only exist to serve the people’s interest would be a strong repellent of tyranny.

His Aereopagitica importantly relates to this concept of liberty, revealing Milton’s distrust of the State and his awareness that good and evil have been closely intertwined since the Fall. There is thus a great need for discernment on behalf of Christians.

According to Milton, Christians have a responsibility to obey their Spirit-guided consciences when authorities transgress their original intent to protect individual freedoms. Would Milton then oppose Christian passivity in the issue of corporate greed?

Consumers have control over products they buy and the companies they support. If the public can educate itself, as Milton so adamantly extols, about which businesses engage in oppressive corporate practices; and if the public will not be slothful about acting on important social issues, which Milton equally advises against; the individual can make her contribution, however minor, toward a healthy and fair exchange of value among consumers. But while Milton does exhort his readers to unearth the root of the issue—the universal principle of human sinfulness— and does offer ways to try to undermine it as individuals, he is sure to inform his readers that “not mortal man, or his imperious will, but justice, is the only true sovereign and supreme majesty upon earth”.

“

Abortion will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to her crime!

”

-- Susan B. Anthony

W

hen a Feminists for Life representative visits a college campus, the first question she asks students is if they know anyone on campus has gotten pregnant. Most students do. She then asks if the students ever see visibly pregnant women walking around campus. Very few, if any, have. Have you? When you think about your experiences on college campuses across the U.S. through visits, post-secondary classes, and sporting events, how often do you see pregnant students?

Women who get pregnant in college generally must choose between dropping out of school or having an abortion. I probably don’t need to tell you that if they drop out of school, they are far less likely to return later. I probably don’t need to tell you that if they don’t go back to school, their options for supporting that child will be narrow. And I probably don’t need to tell you that in the face of this choice, many women feel coerced: without child care, proper housing, maternity benefits, funds and support, what choice does she really have? If she leaves school, she’ll let everyone down and she’ll be even less likely to be able to provide for herself or for a child.

The health center at a university in the north east portion of the U.S. and a pregnancy center near that university provided the following information to Feminists for Life, an organization which advocates for women through offering them alternatives to abortion: in one year, 600 of the 3,000 women who attend that university took pregnancy tests. 300 of those tests were positive. Only 6 women had babies.

According to supporters of abortion, women choose abortion primarily for two reasons, lack of financial resources and lack of support.

What about Cedarville? Is it possible that students who find themselves pregnant at Cedarville University have even fewer options and even more to lose than students on other campuses?

The Image Game: Purity and Public Displays of Affection By: Whitney Muhlenkamp Wood, CU Alumni

Where I have all the pregnant women gone?

I’ll grant that there are at least three key differences between Cedarville University and most other colleges and universities. First, most colleges and universities do not encourage or require students to be abstinent, and many, if not most, students at those colleges and universities do not feel any moral obligation to be stance on sexual purity and policy of punishing sexuabstinent. As a result, the number of students who ally active students. choose to have sex while attending Cedarville is a lot So, yes, far fewer students at Cedarville find themsmaller. selves pregnant than at a lot of other schools. And a Second, Cedarville’s university culture and leadership Cedarville student who finds herself in this situation opposes abortion. In contrast, based upon studies would likely feel a strong moral obligation to carry the conducted by the Catholic World Report in 1997, child. But let me remind you: women do not want Feminists for Life argues that university campuses are to have abortions. Not at Cedarville, not elsewhere. generally so overwhelmingly pro-choice that a large Most women who choose abortion do so out of desnumber of students enter them pro-life and leave pro- peration. choice. Additionally, women who discover that they are pregnant at university health clinics are often en- So, let me ask again. Is it even possible that Cedarcouraged by the staff to get an abortion. Clearly, this ville’s policies that are intended to promote sexual purity give students who break those rules and get would not happen at Cedarville. pregnant fewer options and more incentive to have And third, Feminists for Life has found that most col- an abortion (especially when that hard-lined stances leges and universities actually do have resources for makes it less likely for women to be informed about pregnant and parenting students. Those resources are contraceptives and pregnancy)? When faced with an simply not as well-advertised. Feminists for Life, then, overwhelming choice made all the more overwhelming works to make those resources more well known and by social stigma and possible expulsion from school, to encourage the staff of university health clinics to do compassionate, life-loving women feel coerced into show women they have other options. If Feminists “covering their sin?”And if this is a possible (I say, likefor Life came to Cedarville’s campus, would they find ly) outcome, is it time to question those policies? Or, any unadvertised resources for pregnant and parent- in our hierarchy of values, have we determined that ing students? I find that unlikely, not because they encouraging ‘sexual purity’ is more important than are unadvertised, but because of Cedarville’s hard-line supporting life?

had the opportunity to serve as a resident assistant my second year at Cedarville. I expected an awesome chance to get to know 14 freshmen girls and help them transition to college life.

Overall, that’s what it was. It was also, however, a crash course in Cedarville rules. I never realized how ambiguous and arbitrary many of the rules were until I had to enforce them or had fourteen other people who were being affected by them. This was particularly true in the realm of PDA. PDA at Cedarville is an incredibly vague thing to me.

Even when I was an RA, I didn’t know what the line truly was. Handholding and a “3-second” embrace were fine, but between that and making out, it’s hard to figure out what is a “public display of affection.” I tended to take a more lenient stance. Other RAs, however, would crack down on things that seemed extraordinarily minor to me. I remember one night when one of the girls came back to the dorm, angry that she had received PDA demerits. The reason: she was brushing her boyfriend’s hair off of his forehead. It was times like this where it was extremely difficult to be an RA. I didn’t believe that she should be given demerits, but I also didn’t want to undercut the RA who had given the demerits. After this and similar stories from different girls in my units, I began to think more about the “purity” system that was and still is in place at Cedarville along with what the rules were actually doing to students and their relationships with others.

Though Cedarville claims that the PDA and “purity” rules are in place so that we build up one another spiritually, cultivate healthy relationships, and honor Christ, the product that these rules produce on campus seems to be something different entirely. Both as a RA and as a student, I noticed that the rules did not promote “purity” so much as it promoted secrecy within relationship while the rules judged and punished openly affectionate behavior. Receiving demerits did not cause the girl in my unit to stop brushing her boyfriends hair off his forehead (though I hardly think this is something they needed to remove from their relationship to keep it “healthy”). It merely stopped her from doing it anywhere they would be caught. It also made her believe, and rightly so, that the PDA rules are not actually looking out for the best interest of the students in the relationship but are rather an enforcement of arbitrary rules in order to keep an image of purity on a campus advertised as “Christ focused.” It is this idea of the image that is dangerous in relationship. If there is the façade of “purity,” the Cedarville community has no reason to ask about a couple’s relationship--parents can rest easy and the couple can escape awkward conversations from others. Once a couple learns the image game, it’s much more difficult to share their relationship openly and honestly within the community. I found that as a RA, my ability to have honest discussions with the girls in my units about this topic was next to impossible, because they knew that sharing too much information could give them demerits and put me in a position of having to report them (which they knew I didn’t want to do).

This image of “purity” is not necessarily Biblical purity. Affection is a natural and healthy thing as relationships develop. As many of us have noticed, however, the Bible has no definitive guidelines for affection

Continued on next page

single By: Kate Roberts, CU alumni

T

he engagement stories are abounding, couples are pairing off, and you and I are single. Single, the six letter word that for many of us unearths fear, pain and longing that we have spent so long trying to temper. “Ring by spring” is more than a joke: to some it is a desperate goal, a goal I find even myself grasping unrighteously for, viewing singleness as a fallacious life-option – even if for only a season.

Many of us grew up in the church surrounded by conferences and sermons on virginity and “saving ourselves” for the husband or wife we would be with one day. We were told that college is a magical place where we would find that special someone alongside our book-learning. Now that college is here (and for some of us college will be over shortly), we sit and ask ourselves where that person is--did I some how miss him/her? can that other single person over there make a suitable companion? could they, at least, satisfying this longing to be known and cared for? The purity conferences and sex talks offered by our churches and youth groups (if those churches and youth groups even discuss these topics) have left us short-changed.

St. Augustine famously penned, “Lord make chaste, but not yet.” These words ruminate subliminally through dorm halls as eager freshmen find themselves as graduating seniors without attachment. Though we might be willing to make grandiose statements of contentment and open desire for what the Lord has for us, we are running scared. We are scared wondering if there really is that “one person” for us, scared temptation will overcome us, scared of being alone.

And this is where the discussion on purity and virginity falls egregiously short. According to a traditional Christian ethic, sex is meant to be within a marital relationship, saved for that special someone. But by stating that sex and purity is only about saving yourself for that “someone” we lump sex and our personal sexuality as something that is biological and incomplete currently. The irony is that we criticize media’s portrayal of sex as shallow and animalistic. But by claiming that my purity is nothing but a gift for a person I have not met yet and may not exist do I somehow water down sex to be nothing but animalistic passion that must be kept under lock and key? These words, this concept, have weighed heavy on my mind: have I somehow cheapened my current state of chastity, my current state of singleness by merely just pining and waiting for the someday instead of embracing my current station in life? Historically we have spoken about virginity in terms of a physical act, and recently we have been bringing in the emotional side of purity, but we still are not addressing the deeper nuances that living the virginal life holds. In Lauren Winner’s book

Continued from “The Image Game” with dating relationships. What it does provide is a community of people with whom we practice the Gospel and who can provide support, encouragement, and advice for navigating those dating relationships.

Because students are not given the opportunity to practice healthy affection in community at Cedarville, setting the standard with this “purity” image tends to take students down one of two paths. On one hand, students attempt to live up to this image of an individual that does not need physical affection in relationship until marriage. On the other, students master (or simply scorn) the “purity” image and become very comfortable with private displays of affection. I confess that I was in the latter camp. Neither of these are the healthiest of options.

Real Sex, she quotes a religious community in New Zealand on the matter, “Chastity is the free choice to live one’s sexual life in accord with Christian values – therefore, everyone is called to live chastely” (p.134) Chastity moves beyond just abstinence, but requires us to investigate how we are to live within our sexuality regardless of relationship status.

I remember sitting in my kindergarten Sunday school class hearing metaphorical stories of princesses waiting for their princes. I recall modesty lectures, purity discussions, and “waiting until that day” talks. I was no stranger to the concept of “protecting my purity until the day of marriage.” However, all this was contingent upon there being a Mr. Right. All this was assuming that my future has a definitive spousal relationship.

Even if a husband is in my future should singleness be just a means to an end? Is chastity a fiery hoop we jump through and prayerfully not get scorched? Why do we teach our children these things, and how do we demean those who are widowed or life-long celibate or those that face perils of illness and handicap? Why do we hype up marriage to our children to the point where singleness is frowned upon, chastity is grimaced at, and well meaning “one days” are furiously spread around to calm anxious nerves.

Let’s be honest, you and I know the passages of scripture. We can quote them from “though shall not commit adultery” to “even if you think a dirty thought about another person in your heart it is as though you have committed that against them.” But slowly and surely we have decontextualized these passages, severing them from their communal roots within scripture, their roots in the creation story and the churches collective representation of Christ. We no longer find it convincing to hear or say “But God says so, and therefore…” because we long for these passages of scripture to speak to the deepest longings of our souls, to feel that God hears our deep desires for commitment and unity and be able to trust that regardless of what will be one day we are whole and complete as long as we are rooted in Christ. Chastity is not just about saving sex for marriages, it is about placing sex within a context, one that is rooted in the gospel, in ourselves as created beings, in the restoration narrative of scripture and seeing our fullness as something found in Christ from which we share with others, extending beyond a biological act but encompassing our entire sexuality as male and female - both in how we act as single persons or married persons. The discussion of chastity is more than what I do or not do as an individual, but begs me to look and see how this part of my life functions inside the greater community of the body.

With that being said, I believe that we have been failed by the church as well as have failed ourselves in not

The first option leads to sexual repression, in which students deny all aspects of their sexuality and end up focused on finding ways to continue to avoid thinking about anything sexual. This explains Cedarville’s phenomena such as men requesting that women not wear pajama pants or sweatpants in Chucks to keep them from associating the women with bed and so on and so forth.

The second group of students tend to have the opposite reaction. Outside the fairly sexually repressive environment of Cedarville, students tend to overcompensate and find them selves exploring physical contact within their relationships more than they would have expected. The negative consequences of these views are significant. Neither of these provide direction for students to honestly engage with fellow Christians on this topic, nor does it remind the community

seeking how to live our lives with the fullest contentment within the communal setting. In other words, to live chastely we must come together – elderly, single, married, or widowed - and inspire and challenge one another to live fully and contentedly in our various placements.

When satisfaction in chastity [or maybe just willingness to be chaste] is contingent upon one day being married how much present contentment and joy can we truly experience? Instead of enjoying this season, I find myself anxious for the one day. Instead of viewing chastity as a gift, I view it as squelched desire to which I can honor my future whomever. I have placed my reason for preserving my parochial “greatest treasure” in a person who may or may not exist. Even as I write this I find myself appalled at the fact I am honoring someone that I am uncertain truly exists! Someone who has yet to even earn my respect [let alone I earn his]. What contentment can I ever receive in singleness if I leave myself with such insecurity and unpredictability? If I place my reason for chastity first out of respect for myself as a created being, outflows a respect for myself, and my body. I have respect for a body that is created in the image of Christ; a body that one-day will be resurrected and completely restored. Through this lens I also have a respect for the other bodies and persons I interact with, desiring their body to be holy and a part of the restoration narrative.

Perhaps I must redefine ‘singleness.’ Singleness is a great and prosperous challenge, a time of growth, drought, and beauty to which one can be open and unhindered to the service of others. Singleness, a season to embrace instead of a season to despair. Paul speaks directly to the widow and the single persons proclaiming that this season is good, and with it such persons are able to take part in and be beneficial to the community, even more so than those who are wed (I Cor. 7). We need to reteach ourselves, reteach our churches, and teach our children that singleness is a time to be enjoyed and savored. Though this might not alleviate the desire to be in a close, intimate marriage relationship, it might at the very least encourage a more productive season and a deeper satisfaction and “ok-ness” in where we are. There is great godliness in contentment (1 Tim. 6:6), godliness that views our current provision as enough and rooting unavoidable longing in the trust we have in the faithfulness of God. In all things we are to learn to be content (Philippians 4). If I do not learn to be content now, will I be able to be content later – marriage or not? Will intimacy be satisfying then? Though I am unmarried, and relationally unattached, I will glean the wisdom from those around me. “To be content now, is to be content later,” no matter what the later may be. at large that public affection is not something bad to see in a relationship but rather something honest.

If Cedarville truly desires for students to build up one another spiritually, to cultivate healthy relationships, and to honor Christ, there must be space for students to practice healthy affection and realize that the realm of affection and sexuality should not only be a private domain, but also a public one. “No-PDA” rules punish honest affection in community and do not allow this healthy space to materialize. As a campus – students, faculty, and administration -- we must figure out a way to open dialogue on this topic. We cannot allow the image of “purity” to be the driving force of our relationships. If we’re serious about forging meaningful relationships which foster mutual understanding, accountability, and, yes, affection, then we should carefully reexamine the role which PDA rules play in shaping campus culture.

The Pornography of Violence

by Stephanie Petersen

Philippians 4:8 “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.”

S

ince my freshperson year at Cedarville, I have been fascinated by the cultural limitations, stigma and arbitration that seem to surround some of the university rules, regulations, and institutional preferences.

I am so glad that I remained a student at Cedarville despite my personal conflicts with some of the codes of conduct; but as a graduating senior, I remain deeply disturbed by one aspect of Cedarville culture that defies my understanding: the acceptance and wide enjoyment of video or computer games in which the player(s) inhabit a character that wields weapons, whether towards enemy combatants that resemble humans, aliens, or locations in which human persons are assumed to live (bombing terrorist targets, etc). I am completely aware that the University openly prohibits the ownership or play of games that earn a “Mature” rating (M) from the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board). However, that leaves “Teen (T)” rated games such as Tom Clancy’s Endwar, Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.K, Dungeon Siege III, Trenches: Generals, and World in Conflict: Soviet Assault, and Mount and Blade with Fire and Sword- all of which focus on players inhabiting a role which involves killing enemy combatants with everything from swords to machine gun and missile-firing combat planes. Secondary to this is the commonly known truth (sources include residential students and resident assistants) that playing popular “M” rated games such as Call of Duty, Halo I and Halo II in large groups of students on university

property is commonplace and often uncondemned.

There is nothing the university can do to stop such play-but as is often the case in Christian institutions, I posit that the popularity of violent, first-player video and computer games is a result of poor thinking by us as Christian students, not an institutional error. “ugh”, shout the hundreds of students who play these games casually. “How can anyone confuse reality from the truth? I KNOW I’m not actually killing anybody, and a bunch of studies have shown that violent video games don’t cause people to shoot anybody in real life.”

Granted.

However, the passage referenced above calls me and every other hypocritical, sin-laden Christian to pause and ask--although no pure evil or ill will is evident in my game-playing, wherein lies the good-the proclamation of Gospel truth, or the realization of God’s goodness? Some would claim that these games are realistic, often depicting or reenacting actual war scenes or international areas of conflict. These supporters claim that the strategic finesse and fine motor skills derived from these games make them worthwhile activities for recreation, releasing stress, or creating a social atmosphere among children to adults.

I posit that all of these skills are as well earned through a game of Jenga or Risk-as well as the added bonus of costing less than $300. But along with the lack of compelling evidence as to their benefit, the subject material demands serious review. In a very real world in which children are drugged and made into soldiers, women are shot when they fail to perform for sex-crazed clientele, rogue nations threaten massacre and violence against their minority populations, government agents perform violent interrogations, civilians are wrongly imprisoned for years and nuclear weapons are viable for stable and closed nations alike, it seems more than minutely trivializing to glorify these acts into a virtual, competitive format. What insight do we gain into our groaning world when we cheer over points gained from a “hit”-meaning, points gained from the successful identification, targeting and annihilation of a human or intelligent being.

Before you decide to kick back with some buddies by shooting aliens, ask yourself-what is pure, lovely, excellent and noble about this activity? I would argue not much. Let us join together in a movement towards authentic fellowship and recreation that celebrates the good, beautiful and true things about our world and mourns its atrocities with reverence rather than revelry. As we nobly focus our efforts on the desensitization of graphic sexuality and vulgarity, let us not forget the pornography of violence that can seep into our lives through technology and competition.

L e t t er to the Edi t or Dear Friends,

We started The Ventriloquist because we felt the need for open, challenging discourse in our community and a place unconstrained by University funding, pressure and voice to host that discourse. This need has been our guiding principle.

We began as an anonymous paper for two reasons. One, we wanted people (from alumni to students to marginalized or frustrated community members to faculty/staff) to know they were free to write about anything they felt compelled to write about, and that they did not have to fear chastisement for their writing. The second reason was that we wanted to avoid stigma associated with name: we wanted our readership to give each piece fair consideration, not to ignore certain articles because they dislike the writer, or her/his political affiliation.

Our staff decided to move away from the anonymous format because we have recognized that healthy discourse can be better attained through open relationship. I began to recognize this when a student came up to me distributing issue 2, wondering if I knew how he could set up a meeting with the editors. As I mumbled some vague, elusive answer, I realized that our staff was inaccessible to the majority of people unaware of who wrote which article, something none of our core staff members ever wanted.

The second thing we recognized was that in some ways, we were setting up a hostile relationship to our community and in doing so, constructing a larger stigma. Withholding identity insinuates a hostile relationship; it is self-marginalizing and defines oneself in opposition to that which has an identity. We were failing to convey that we are the community, not a small ‘faction’ of the community.

So, all this to explain why there are names on some articles now. You can specify whether you prefer to remain anonymous when you submit an article to us and our core staff members are now listed on each issue. That way we can all talk more openly. We still promise confidentiality to those who submit something they fear may earn chastisement and encourage them to continue to submit.

This project has been a great learning experience so far.

See you in the fall!

Kimberly Prijatel

ACROSS 2. The constitution state 3. The first phase in the process of mitosis 4. His latest album is titled “Hello Fear” 5. Author of Federalist 52 8. “You’re gonna like the way you look. I _________ it” 9. Famous widow who attended Antioch College in Yellow Springs, OH 10. Christopher Reeves damaged this organ composed of nervous tissue 11. “There’s a _____ in my boot!”

12. Controversial book by Rob Bell

DOWN 1. Youtube video featuring a musician with a mullet 6. Tobias from “Arrested Development” is a _____ ____ 7. Achievement of a positive feat three times during competition