- May 14th, 2014, 7:14 am
#454343
If I'm correctly understanding SJ and BYD, et al, LU shouldn't spend so much time and other resources being about "what we're against." Supposedly LU is doing that because it's what we - those of us no longer ensconced within the proverbial Liberty Bubble that is on-campus life - hear about the loudest and most clearly. But seeing as our sources are often the media at-large, are we not allowing the very people who inherently disagree with the University's tenants to frame the message we receive from it? Doesn't that mean we are automatically starting from a skewed position. When we talk on this website about how the decision's of the University affect the legitimacy of our degrees in the eye of our peers, we're saying that we hate the fact Liberty is trashed. We say this, we think, because we feel Liberty could do more to help itself. It I came to the realization years ago that even if Liberty performed perfectly in the public eye (which most here will agree it does not), it would still be trashed by the media because we disagree on a fundamental level with most of those in the media, and objective media went out the window a generation ago.
So what? Let them go on and on about the awful things being done by Liberty! But as those with a greater vantage point than most, do not allow them to change what we know: that despite what the media would have us believe, there is A LOT of good foin on at Liberty. And despite the fact that it's PR/Communication apparatus is flawed, the good still grossly outweighs the bad. SJ, you said the public image of the University is a poor one; I argue that's going to be the case no matter how perfectly Liberty walks the line. And if that's the case, who cares what our perception is?
Liberty made a decision in the 1990's that in order to have the broad appeal necessary to have true and total cultural impact, as an institution it must do two things: 1) maintain a presence in the national discourse, and 2) remain ultimately beholden to a small number of core tenants. Despite the statements by a few at the outset of this thread, and their supporting examples, I've yet to observe my alma mater violate either of these necessary modes of operation which maintain its cultural impact.
Addressing JJ's comments to CNN about Mormonism, I think the University - or simply he - would need to state it's definition of a cult in order for us to have a dialogue. It sounds to me as if many of you believe that because its a religious movement in violation of ours, it automatically bears the designation of a cult. Strictly speaking, I don't believe that criteria alone is what designates a cult as such.
And finally, to the example given of the abundance of guest speakers who assimilate themselves within one specific political party: if we agree that no organized political party and arguably no individual politician completely espouses Liberty's views, is that reason to not allow any politician or political party to express a view on Liberty's campus or to its inhabitants? Absolutely not! Rather, it only makes sense to most often invite those who views follow Liberty's most closely, while mixing in a few of those whose viewed are as much as radically different. At best, and as PH put it, Liberty can really only be definitively blamed for at times not offering enough of a disclaimer in such instances.
So what? Let them go on and on about the awful things being done by Liberty! But as those with a greater vantage point than most, do not allow them to change what we know: that despite what the media would have us believe, there is A LOT of good foin on at Liberty. And despite the fact that it's PR/Communication apparatus is flawed, the good still grossly outweighs the bad. SJ, you said the public image of the University is a poor one; I argue that's going to be the case no matter how perfectly Liberty walks the line. And if that's the case, who cares what our perception is?
Liberty made a decision in the 1990's that in order to have the broad appeal necessary to have true and total cultural impact, as an institution it must do two things: 1) maintain a presence in the national discourse, and 2) remain ultimately beholden to a small number of core tenants. Despite the statements by a few at the outset of this thread, and their supporting examples, I've yet to observe my alma mater violate either of these necessary modes of operation which maintain its cultural impact.
Addressing JJ's comments to CNN about Mormonism, I think the University - or simply he - would need to state it's definition of a cult in order for us to have a dialogue. It sounds to me as if many of you believe that because its a religious movement in violation of ours, it automatically bears the designation of a cult. Strictly speaking, I don't believe that criteria alone is what designates a cult as such.
And finally, to the example given of the abundance of guest speakers who assimilate themselves within one specific political party: if we agree that no organized political party and arguably no individual politician completely espouses Liberty's views, is that reason to not allow any politician or political party to express a view on Liberty's campus or to its inhabitants? Absolutely not! Rather, it only makes sense to most often invite those who views follow Liberty's most closely, while mixing in a few of those whose viewed are as much as radically different. At best, and as PH put it, Liberty can really only be definitively blamed for at times not offering enough of a disclaimer in such instances.
- By PAmedic
- By Dalegarz1