Issue 1, No. 2, pg. 1 (10/11/96)

NEWSLETTER ISSUES

1.)     Please peruse this list of e-mail addresses that have come up as
incorrect, and if you recognize any of them, let us know what the correct
address is.

          freefinch@aol.com
          dlstephens@eagle.pcci.edu
          shozick@eagle.pcci.edu
          kellet65@aol.com
          nsc7905755@aol.com      

2.)     As always, keep sending us e-mail addresses of students who may, or
even those who may not be interested in this newsletter.  It is our goal to
reach 100 readers by Thanksgiving, and at the rate in which we are growing,
this goal looks possible.

3.)     Please feel free to print a copy of these issues to keep or to send
to as many people as you can.  Continue to spread the word regarding The
Student Voice, PCC's alternative newsletter.


QUOTE OF THE WEEK

     This quote was part of a speech given by J.L. Morrill, former president
of the University of Minnesota regarding what it means to live in a free
society:

     "What I have wanted to say is that the prospects of our free society are
almost boundless if we can perceive and protect the genius of freedom:
freedom for discovery and diversity, for change and advance.  I have tried to
communicate my conviction that schools and colleges and universities are the
most significant trustees of freedom among all the institutions of our
society - that their problems point up, as clearly as any you can identify,
the problems of our free society.
     I have spoken to you as influential and educated citizens at the very
center of our American business enterprise system - a system which I regard
as an indispensable resource of American strength and leadership in the world
today.  And I am not thinking merely of money and financial strength.
     I am thinking of the ideals under which it has developed - the ideal of
'elbowroom' for individual initiative and intelligence and industry, and the
rewards of these in a national climate of self-reliance; the ideal, indeed of
freedom as we in America know it.
     It is these I beg you to foster in your special capacity to appraise and
encourage investment in the largest and finest sense of that word.  Deeply I
believe that the dividends of freedom will determine the dimensions of our
American destiny."

ESSAY

"A CALL ON THE ADMINISTRATION TO REVISE THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE PROCEDURES"

     INTRODUCTION.
     The essence of an institution's philosophy takes effect through the
systems and procedures it creates.  Ideology is not a neutral exercise.  Each
one of us, individually as well as corporately to the extent feasible and not
interfered with by outside sources, transforms our philosophy into actions by
making decisions as to how we live.  If I have a philosophical belief that I
should reach a level of knowledge only attained, or only recognized, by a
formal education, then I will transform that philosophy into real actions
that mean going to school and getting a degree.  This is, as just stated,
contingent upon the extent feasible and not interfered with by outside
sources (i.e., money, family requirements, etc.).
     So it is with PCC.  If PCC's philosophy holds that its students are not
capable of making decisions beyond that which a junior-high student can make,
this philosophy will be transformed into certain actions.  These actions
include, among other things, procedures the students are required to follow.
 The procedure we want to focus on in this essay is Discipline Committee, or
"DC."
     As a very general statement, we think this procedure as it is now
conducted is unfair, inefficient and degrading to a student's maturity.  We
think it needs to be changed.
     Bear in mind two points before we continue.  First, this whole discourse
is intended to be CONSTRUCTIVE, and although highly critical, we feel like
this criticism should be used to reform a procedure into something better and
more appropriate.  We do not mean to tear down without providing the means to
rebuild.  Second, in reference to authority and the legitimacy of this
procedure (see Issue 1, No. 1 (10/4/96)), we are not challenging the validity
of this system.  We will concede DC's validity.  What we are challenging,
however, is the procedure's prudence.  Please understand this point: just
because a rule, policy or procedure is valid does not mean it is wise or the
best means of accomplishing a valid purpose.  PCC undoubtedly has a
legitimate interest and responsibility to maintain control over the
"community."  But it must keep in mind that it is not maintaining control
over children, but rather it is maintaining control over adults.  Therefore,
control methods which are appropriate for children are not necessarily
appropriate for adults.  Obviously. . .

     THE SETTING.
     Let us lay out the DC procedure (just in case we have any readers who
are fortunate enough to have never had the pleasure of attending one...).
 Each student must check a public list of names which describes in a
particular code what demerits he/she has received during the past week (which
much of the time the student has no idea about until then).  Certain demerits
are "standard" in that they have a specific code and do not require
attendance at DC unless the student wishes to challenge these demerits (i.e.,
room jobs, late to class, etc.).  Then there is the code which simply means
that the student must attend DC, although it gives no indication as to what
the demerits are for.  We will refer to this as the "MS" or the "mystery
sanction."  The student with the MS must then spend his/her weekend with a
cloud of apprehension and uncertainty because they have no idea for what or
how much trouble they will be in come time for DC.
     DC time comes...  The student must then take time out of his/her busy
schedule and attend this "hearing."  They go to a room where they are herded
in like criminals and told they may not talk (wouldn't want to disturb the
inquisition next door. . .).  Everyone sits around and waits for their time
to be called.  Once the name is called the student must get into a
single-file line and await his turn.
     Once the student is beckoned into the inner hearing room of DC, he/she
is read the offenses, to which the sentence has already been established
without hearing a word of defense from the accused.  It is after this point
in time that the administrative figure waits for a response.  No response is
implicit concession, and the demerits are then added to the student's total.

     THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS SYSTEM.
     We feel that there are several specific problems with this system of
"discipline."  By "problems" we mean that the system is not the most
appropriate method of accomplishing its intended purpose.  Remember, this is
a procedural problem, not necessarily a substantive one, although any problem
is in some respects substantive.

     Problem #1: If this system is to be fair, there must be some kind of
ADVANCED NOTICE given of the offense.  A student should never be called on to
answer to a charge for which he/she had no idea of.  This is ridiculous!  It
is absurd to think that a student can mount an adequate defense when he
doesn't even know what he is defending!  In the U.S. justice system there is
no more fundamental requirement of the government than that the accused must
be given notice of the accusation and time to prepare a defense.  This is
nothing unusual, it is just that anything less is totally unfair and unjust.
     How can you, a student, adequately defend yourself when you are asked to
give an answer to a charge at the precise moment you learn what that charge
is?  These demerits affect your record, which affects such things as, well,
your future career.  You ought to at least be given some kind of adequate
notice of what it is you are charged with.
     Solution: The solution to this problem is simple.  Whenever someone
writes a demerit slip for a student (without getting into the pros and cons
of this practice), that student should get a copy of it.  This simply lets
the student know what he/she is said to have done which was a violation of
the established rules.  What possible burden could this pose on the school?
 We can't think of any.  In fact, this would greatly benefit the student at
absolutely no expense to the school.  All that needs to be done is to require
the issuer of the initial charge to place a copy of the charge in the
student's mailbox.  As students you ought to press for this change.

     Problem #2: It is also inherently unfair to sanction a student for
something when the individual doing the sanctioning is unknown.  What check
is there against prejudicial charges?  If anyone believes that prejudice is
not present at PCC, they are very naive.
     Also, if an individual is going to take a deliberate action that could
possibly affect the rest of someone's life, he ought to be required to face
the accused.  The process arbitrarily takes one person's word over another's.
 Why is this the case?  Why is it that if you accuse another student of
something, you automatically receive the benefit of the doubt over the
accused simply because you have made an accusation?  This makes absolutely no
sense!  There are a multitude of reasons why one person's word may not be
accurate: prejudice, incorrect perception of surrounding circumstances,
incorrect information, etc.
    Solution: Again, the solution to this problem is very simple - let the
student know who made the accusation.  An additional requirement should be
that the accuser be required to answer to the DC if the accused requests it.
 But this would impose a tremendous time burden, you may be saying.  Whose
considerations are more important, the accuser's or the accused?  We think
the answer is obvious.

     Problem #3: Speaking of time burdens, the DC procedure as it is now
conducted is a huge waste of time.  The reality is that in most of the cases
a student has no defense or does not feel he needs to give one.  Why, then,
make this student take time out of his day for absolutely no beneficial
reason?  In college, as in the real world, time is a premium, and to have a
procedure that wastes so much of it seems unnecessary.
     Solution: The solution to this problem is again apparent and simple.
 Have the charges placed in the mailbox with the number of demerits to be
received, and then hold DC for those students who wish to challenge the
charges.  This accomplishes the exact same objective that DC attempts to
satisfy right now, but eliminates the often wasted trip to DC.  We honestly
can think of no reason why this should not be the procedure.

     CONCLUSION
     DC as it is now conducted is both unfair and inefficient.  The solutions
we have outlined will add some common sense, efficiency and fairness to this
procedure without sacrificing any legitimate objective of the administration.
     However, we at The Student Voice can do nothing to affect these changes.
 You can, though.  The administration needs to be enlightened to these
changes, and you should be the ones to do it.


READER'S COMMENTS FROM LAST WEEK'S ISSUE [ESSAY ON AUTHORITY]

     Comment #1
     << The StudentV: This text is presented for your perusal and for
publication in the StudentV e-mail letter. Please forgive type-errors-I
quit proffreading after graduation.

Reading your essay and the latest dialog has prompted a few remarks:

1: Regarding the request to be taken of the list for "lack of backbone.":
If you have had any experience with PCC as staff, faculty, or student you
surely must admit that the administration will "discipline" anyone
speaking in a manner that the administration does not approve.  This goes
for papers, speeches, and private conversations.  This is simply a fact. 
Therefore it is foolish for people to open themselves up for unneccesary
repercussions by revealing their names.  It is too bad that fellow
Christians must act this way, but the point of much of this dialog is
ultimately to bring to light that it is sad!  Things DO need to CHANGE.
God expects change from his children and the kingdoms they create.
Anonymity in no way invalidates the
logic used or the points made.  Personal experiences cannot be validated
so much, but it is assumed that no one is lying as it would defeat the
entire purpose of the dialog.  It is perhaps sad that even the most
far-fetched story is believable based upon experience.

2: Regarding the prohibition of public devotions last year; my opinion. 
If any authority prohibits the study of God's Word, they must be
disobeyed, however in this case, PCC did not prohibit it-only greatly
restrict it and control the times it could be done.  In this sense,
although an inconvenience, God had provided an "out" to obey Him and the
school.  Therefore you cannot please God by disobeying it.  However, it is
ironic that a Christian school should create such a rule and I believe the
motivations were twofold.  One: it shows the administrations complete lack
of respect for the student, his age, and ability to make decisions.  The
admin announced that they did not want others to think they weren't
spiritual enough when they saw people having devotions. Okay- can't we
interpret a situation on our own. disrespect one. However, they must go
further and in essence say "you are to weak and feeble minded to not feel 
inadequate when you see others having a devotional, so we will "help" you
by eliminating others having devotional from your sight.  Then your mind
may remain the pliable unthinking mass we enjoy (but I digress).  This is
the second disrespect.

3: Related to the last thought, is the schools tremendous
problem with pride.  Never has any institution been more caught up in its
appearance.  At all times they want students to appear in a way which they
want them to appear.  The Bible teaches us to give no mind to our own
reputations, but to go about God's business and He will take care of us. 
The school simply does not trust the Holy SPirit to do the work which
Jesus promised it would be faithful to do in each one of His children. 
Our Lord never censured a voice or feared a discussion- nor was he afraid
of appearances or who he was seen with.  I have no problem with college
days or common sense marketing, but the constant self-promotion from the
row of "dignitaries" at every service to using the senior convacation as a
chance to advertise to prospective students.  If God was dead, PCC would
not miss a beat because it surely doesn't rely on Him-the machine is in
full swing.

4: PCC is not forthright in what it purports to believe so strongly.
Dr. Mullenix, appearing on a local radio show was asked by a local caller,
commenting how when he works on campus he can't listen to Rock music
stations, asked if PCC students can only listen to WPCS then they couldn't
even here his show.  Mullenix responded that of course they could listen
to stations other then WPCS and left it at that.  This infered that
students could listen to whatever they wanted- this was clear, and as much
deception as an outright lie (as pastor Shettler has been faithful to
teach).  Later he responded that of course a PCC girl could date a
non-student, again leaving out the fact that they couldn't actually go ON
a date, nor could she ever go to his house regardless of whether parents
were home or not.  If PCC feels these rules are proper Christian conduct
and mandates of God then they should be proud to let the community know
and not hide behind a smile and vague answers.

Finally: I pose the following questions to whoever would care to respond.

If the campus church is actually a church, how can anyone be banned from
it (i.e. not allowed on campus).  What is its system of restoration for
those who have fallen?

Please give me any justification for the "shadowing" process.  To me, it
again shows the admins complete direspect of students, assuming the worst,
and in fact treating them worse than any pagan institution.  If I was to
send an annonymous note to the admin regarding a student and say,
homosexual actions, they would be interogated and presumed guilty and they
would never know who had accused them (in itself OBVIOUSLY unbiblical- PCC
cicumvents every passage on Biblical problem solving according to say
Matt. 5.)  Dealing with students through interogation, fear, and isolation
is without doubt tools used by the devil and not the Light.
The one argument for this procedure is to control gossip, but this is
actually quite ineffective, and again shows contempt for the judgement and
intelligence of the schools beloved students.

If a staff family wishes to have a grown son or daughter live at "their"
house that child must pay rent if he doesn't work at PCC or attend school
their.  The child is effectively robbed of a "refuge" should they fall
upon hard times and need a place to stay-their own parents home will cost
them.  I can't imagine who created this policy, but again, no worldly
company would ever do this.  Its a shame!


To close: I have considered whether the root of PCC's "control freak"
complex is that it had its origins as a elementary school, then high
school, and then college, and a proper understanding of the difference
between grade schoolers and there needs for structure, control, planned
activities, and bedtimes and that of young men and women, who should times
be different could very well be fighting and dying for there country (or
faith).  Godless or not, it is assinine to tell an adult that he cannot
talk to his friends or someone of the opposite sex for two weeks.  If some
twisted silent treatment-its unmanageable and just plain immature.  We
must quesion these things regardless of how long they have gone on or how
use to them we are.
Students must be given wings and room to stretch them- there will be
crashes and thank God He is faithful even then, but an 18yr old (or 22 yr
old for that matter) must be allowed to grow.

Rather than yearn for that "old time religion," shouldn't we question the
methods of our fathers which left us with a Godless country, powerless
church, and a shallow personal relationship with Christ. Sing a  "New Song"
indeed!

UnderTheMercy.

lupos

>>>>>>

     Response #1
     Your views are very forthright and cogent.  You point out a lot of
things that we feel a spotlight needs to be focused on.
     Regarding bizarre experiences being believable, they surely are.  But
aren't bizarre experiences created by a bizarre environment?  Makes you
wonder...
     Regarding your views on the prohibition of public devotions.  We agree
with the reasons for this, but we disagree that by only "limiting it" PCC has
created an out.  Who has the right to limit your right to read God's Word?
 Sure, there are limited circumstances in which this may be so, such as while
you are on the job, but our position is that this cannot be done as
arbitrarily as PCC has done.  To call oneself "Christian" and then limit the
fundamental basis of Christianity is the height of hypocrisy. We still hold
to the position that if this is still a rule, it should be disobeyed.
     This instance you relayed about Dr. Mullenix's evasive answers seems to
be consistent with our experiences at school there.  The administration has
no problem imposing all kinds of sanctions and restrictions for any or no
reason, but when the inconsistencies are pointed out, those who supposedly
adhere to these positions sort of lose their zeal.  Why?  WHERE ARE THE
STRAIGHT ANSWERS?  This is what you as the student needs to do - begin the
dialogue which will ultmately end up with some straight answers, not the
evasive (and dishonest???) answers given to the world.
     Regarding your two questions about church and shadowing, we intend on
doing essays on precisely those two issues, so we will defer from addressing
those questions at this time, but they are still open to anyone else who
would like to address them.


     Comment #2
     <<  Dear StudentV, 

    I like your style, keep it up.  You guys have some great ideas and 
comebacks, but how are you planning to change things at PCC?  Please 
explain. >>

     Response #2
     Your question is a very good one, and one that we wish we had a definite
black and white answer for.  Unfortunately, change is not up to us, it is up
to those who are there at school right now.
     The first step in this process is to recognize that there is a problem
that needs to be changed.  If the school is perfect, then nothing would need
to be changed, would it?  But if the school is not perfect, then there needs
to be an identification of what exactly is not perfect and therefore ripe for
change.  That's where this discussion comes in.  Hopefully, through allowing
the students and alumni to openly discuss what it is that we continually
gripe about under our collective breath, progress may then begin.
     The second step is to find a solution to that particular area we have
determined needs to be changed.  This is where there is a lot of room for
creativity and ideas. Unfortunately, the students are not encouraged to be
creative and are therefore rather dull-minded (nothing personal, we were once
there too...).
     Once we have determined what is the right solution, then it is up to the
students at PCC to press the administration for change.  We have some
definite ideas for this, but we are far away from being at that stage yet...
     Things will change, though, we can feel it.  Remember, ideas have
consequences.

     Comment #3
     << I think the "you don't have guts to give your name" ploy is the same
as 
the man who challenges you to "put down your gun and fight like a man."  
The statement is said in the face of a power which is perceived to be 
irresistable in a bid to even the odds.  It is probably good that the 
Student Voice does not have a face or faces, that allows the readers to 
concentrate on the words as they compare to God's Word, and not on the 
authors' lives as they compare to the readers' own lives. >>

     Response #3
     We agree.  We fail to see the relevance of our identities.  

     Comment #4
     << You are obviously not too proud of where you went to school.  If you
had
any kind of loyalty to what you learned or what God taught you here you
would not be so blatantly disagreeable and argumentatitve.  Maybe if you
found a way to say wjhat you were trying to say in a less argumentative
fashion you might actually get someone to listen to you.  I could care
less about what you think of me and others who agree with the rules that
others have to live under at PCC.  But I do have one thing to say,
anywhere else you are also expected to agree and abide by the
regulations placed over you,  ie. Marine Corps, Navy, Army, Air Force,
Coast Guard.  They all have regulations that members must live by.  This
is not an out of the ordinary thing.  If you went to a State College you
could be taken to court by some other persoin for reading your Bible.
Frankly I am appalled that you would attack the place where God sent you
to study in such a manner.  I would also suggest that you be careful what
you say to the students that are receiving your quote unquote
"newsletter".  You are trying to sow discord amoung the Christian
population at PCC,  and if you cause someone to fight the administration
you will answer to God.  I quote Romans 13: 

 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.  For there is no
power but of God:  the powers that be are ordained of God.  Whosoeveer
therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God:  and they
that resist shall receive to themselves DAMNATION.  For rulers are not a
terror to good works, but to the evil.  Wilt thou then not be afriad of
the power?  do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the
same."

Proverbs 6:16-19

"These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abominatino unto
him:  A proud look, a lying tounge, and handes that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feeet that be swift in
running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that
soweth discord amoung brethren."

You are in danger of incurring God's wrath. I believe God has set this
place up.  Obvously it is not the only place for Christians to go to
study, but it has been blessed by the Lord.  I care not what you say
about my words but I suggest that you read the passages of Scripture
carefully.  I may have messed something up when I typed them, but look them
up for yourself.  I have also spoken with several others and my
opinion is that you are twisting other people's words, to make them fit
your argument.  I understand that there are some problems, no one and no
thing is perfect, but the manner in which you go about something is
important.  IF you are a Christian, which by your words is doubtful,
then listen to what God has to say about what you are doing and realize that
you are responsible to HIM one day.  If you really want to help
people see what is in your words "best"  then send them encouragement in
the Lord.  

Philippians 4:8

"Finally, brethren whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are
honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure,
whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if
there be any virtue if there be any praise think on these things." 

Encourage the students to do right.  Don't just throw mud.  I am sorry that
you are so bitter toward the school, if they did something to you that
was not right then fine, but bitterness is not the way to handle it.  Let
go of your hate and let God deal with it.  With your words and attitude you
are causing others to become angry and bitter.  It is not your fight
it is God's let HIM take care of it.  If you choose to use my reply in
your future "newsletters"  I ask that you not change the Scripture.  If
you twist my words I will call you to task on it, but that is our
problem and God will handle it much better than I could.  I hope that
you can see that I am not angry or upset with you and your paper, just I
do not want to see another person hurt by something that is said. >>

     Response #4
     You write, " If you had any kind of loyalty to what you learned or what
God taught you here you would not be so blatantly disagreeable and
argumentatitve."  --> First, what God has taught us is precisely what has
made us "disagreeable and argumentative."  We are pointing out things that
God has taught us, and simply because they don't mesh with your ideas has
nothing to do with our loyalty.  Why should we be loyal to hypocrisy?  Why
should we be loyal to inconsistency?  Why should we be loyal to abuses of
authority?  Those things we are not loyal to, but we are loyal to what God
has taught us. Unfortunately, the two are not always the same
     Second, if you would read our essays, you would realize that we are
being as objective and non-disagreeable as we can be.  But even still, what
is the problem with being "blatantly disagreeable and argumentative"?  Read
the New Testament, my friend. Christ Himself became "blatantly disagreeable
and argumentative" on several occasions. In fact, each time this disagreement
and argument was focused towards religious groups who pressed rules and
regulations on others.  See any analogy?
     Next you write, " Maybe if you found a way to say wjhat you were trying
to say in a less argumentative fashion you might actually get someone to
listen to you."  --> Let's see. . .would the fact that we have a very popular
newsletter that many people read (including you) qualify as "actually"
getting someone to listen to us?
     Next you write, "...anywhere else you are also expected to agree and
abide by the
regulations placed over you,  ie. Marine Corps, Navy, Army, Air Force, Coast
Guard.  They all have regulations that members must live by."  --> Again, you
are mixing apples and oranges - submission and disagreement are not the same
thing.  The military is an entirely different scenerio.  Instead of the
student paying the school for a service, a soldier in the military is
recieving a paycheck to do and to be prepared to do a job.  By recieving that
paycheck, the soldier is contractually agreeing to follow the rules of his
employer. (Refer to the right to enter into contractual agreements in Issue
1, No. 1 (10/4/96))
     Next you write, "If you went to a State College you could be taken to
court by some other persoin for reading your Bible."  --> This statement is
completely untrue.  In fact, there is not even a resemblance of truth in what
you have said.  Is this the kind of idea that you want us to be loyal to?  If
you are going to make a statement to prove or demonstrate your point, it
would be helpful if the statement were true.
     But since you consider yourself a legal expert, we welcome you to
provide the readers with an explanation of how one person could take another
person to court for reading their Bible at a state college.  What is the law
that prohibits this?  What theory will the aggrieved party sue under?  The
readers are curious...
     Next you write, " I quote Romans 13:"  --> So do we.  "For there is NO
power but of God."  Trace the power back to God, then we will honor it.
     Next you write, "I have also spoken with several others and my opinion
is that you are twisting other people's words, to make them fit your
argument."  --> How are we twisting anyone's words?  This is something we
take seriously.  Yes, we can be a little rough with those who we feel are in
error, but we welcome people to be as rough to our words as they want to be.
 Please give us an example of when we twisted someone's words, and we will
publicly apologize.
     If what we are doing now with your argument is what your referring to,
this cannot be, because we included your entire text above for everyone to
read and understand the context.  So, we do not understand where you're
coming, but we take it seriously and wish to remedy any time we have twisted
someone's words.
     In reference to Phillipians 4:8, this discussion has everything to do
with what is honest, what is just and what is true, three characteristics
mentioned in this verse.  It goes on to say that if there be ANY virtue in
these things to think on them.  We believe that there is plenty of virtue in
trying to make a Christian institution better.
     Next you write, " I am sorry that you are so bitter toward the school."
 Again, as we have tried to explain many times, we are not bitter.
 DISAGREEMENT DOES NOT EQUAL BITTERNESS.  Are you bitter when you want to
change a policy of the U.S.?  Of course not.  Why, then, is this any
different?
     Finally, although we have been a little rough, we do appreciate your
input.

     Comment #5.
     << true story #1:  a dorm supervisor of a men's residence hall, in
addressing the floor 
leaders of that paricular dorm was heard to give the following challenge, in
summarized form:  "guys, it's a war out there.  if by the end of the day you
have failed to issue x number of demerits, you are losing the battle and not
doing your job."

  (sad commentary on Christian leadership and promotion of unity.)

true story #2:  having been asleep for close to half and hour, a friend of
mine was 
awaken by the bright lights of his room, suddenly turned on.  he groggily
looked up to see who or what was in his room, (as did the other occupants as
well).  there stood his floorleader.  with no explanation, this floor leader
proceeded to tell this friend of mine that the administration, UPON SEARCHING
THE ROOM WHILE NONE OF THE OCCUPANTS WERE PRESENT, (a common practice
referred to as "Ad-check"), had decided that a picture on the dresser was
inappropriate to be displayed.  the picture 
was of my friend hugging his girlfriend.  the floorleader proceeded to tell
my friend to take it down.  sleepily, my friend assured the 
floorleader it would be taken down first thing in the morning. a similar 
conversation followed:
  "No, get out of bed and take it down now."
  "I will get it in the morning, I promise."
  "No, take it down now."
realizing he had no alternative, not even the chance for a compromise, 
my friend got up, walked over to the dresser, and laid the picture down 
so it couldn't be seen.
  "No, take it off the dresser," he heard quickly.
by this time, the other roomates watched.  so he took it down and set it 
on the floor, face down, as he returned to his bed.
  "Put it away."
  "It is away."
  "Put it away!"

 (should U.S. officials impose this treatment on its citizens, it would 
spark, justifiably, a outcry of injustice.)  

true story #3:
  a music teacher during the first class of the semester was giving the 
students and overview of the electronic pianos at which they were 
sitting.  these pianos stored a bank of electronic sounds ranging from a 
full orchestra, to trumpets, to drums.  about the drums, the teacher was 
quick to remark, "Because these pianos were designed by people who don't 
know the Lord, there are drum sounds loaded into the sound bank.  Do not 
use these sounds."

(off hand, i can't think of any scripture that teaches that one "will 
know we are His disciples by the sounds you load into your instrument.")

--the administration often refers to the community of Pensacola as one 
which "highly respects Pensacola Christian College."  I am fortunate 
enough to maintain contact with quite a few people in the community, and 
not once have i heard a promotional comment.  More often i hear words 
like, "fascist", and "ridiculous".

     Response #5
     Wow!  Too much for us to handle here...


     Well, this about wraps it up for this edition of The Student Voice.
 Please continue to help us grow.  We have a lot of ideas in mind, it's just
that we have limited time and resources.  We do plan on getting out an issue
every week, though, hopefully on Fridays, but if not Friday then definitely
on Saturday.
     Next week we will be profiling some of the writers, including the
founder of The Student Voice, and the topic for next week's essay will be a
discussion of PCC's beach policy.
     Keep sending us your comments, regardless of what side of the fence you
are on.  If you disagree with us, don't let our aggresiveness intimidate you.
 We love to hear from everyone.

THE STUDENT VOICE