############################################################
          The Student Voice   Issue 1, No. 3,   10.18.1996
############################################################

          QUOTES OF THE WEEK.

     Clothing:
"Christians all doing and acting the same?  Christians all looking 
dowdy and seedy with their clothes the wrong cut and length?  Somehow it 
doesn't seem to fit in with the flowers and all the rest of the amazing 
variety in God's creation.  Flowers and sunsets, moon on water and 
delicate grasses in the starlight--would the designer of all this dress 
His own children, created in his image, in clothing which would make 
them unhappy and self-conscious?  Would He have them all be alike and 
look alike?  What do you think?"
        -Edith Schaeffer

"Freedom, after all, is simply being able to live with the consequences of
your decisions."
        -James X. Mullen, "The Simple Art of Greatness"

"And slowly answer'd Arthur from the barge:
'The old order changeth, yielding place to new,
And God fulfils himself in many ways,
Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.' "
        -Alfred, Lord Tennyson

############################################################

          TABLE OF CONTENTS

     I.   Newsletter announcements

     II.   Profile of The Student Voice founder and chief editor, Leibniz

     III.   "Have you heard the one about...?"

     IV.   Essays
               A.   "Some Thoughts on Motives" - Lupos
               B.   "Understanding PCC Ideology: A Comparison" - Leibniz

     V.   Past week's comments, and responses from The Student Voice

     VI.   Your thoughts? 

############################################################

I.     NEWSLETTER ANNOUNCEMENTS

<<< Remember to feel free to print copies of The Student Voice to send to
others

<<< Current readership stats are as follows:

          Readers:  71
          Those requesting to be removed from the list:  8
          PCC professors who recieve The Voice (those we know for sure):  5

<<< Starting this issue, we will no longer be sending out The Student Voice
in groups of 5 or 6.  While this will take longer to send, it will keep your
name and/or address from being known by anyone else.

<<< Keep sending potential readers. . . .
 
############################################################

II.     PROFILES OF THE STUDENT VOICE WRITERS

       A.   Founder, editor-in-chief, Leibniz

Family Status:   25 / Single / Male

Occupation:   Law  

Self-portrait:   Quiet and reserved, philosopher, thinker, a little on the
abrasive side

Motto:   "Ideas have consequences. . ."

Walter Mitty fantasy:   President of the United States, best-selling fiction
writer

Most inspirational person:   Thomas Jefferson, Sir Thomas Moore

Bad habits:   Lazy and greedy

Pet peeves:   People who drive slow in the left-hand lane

Hobbies:   Golf, golf and hitting the links

Luxury defined:   To spend a week secluded in a chalet in the heart of the
Appalachians

Favorite TV program:   Seinfeld

Favorite books:   COMMON SENSE - Thomas Paine; PERELANDRA - C.S. Lewis; THE
COMPLETE JEFFERSON - Saul K. Padover

Best professor at PCC:   Kurt Grussendorf
    
<<< Since so many people have asked us to reveal our identities, this is the
best we can do.  Next week we will have the profile of lupos.

############################################################

III.     HAVE YOU HEARD THE ONE ABOUT...?

<<< This is the segment in which we pass along interesting "PCC stories,"
stories you just can't get, or appreciate, anywhere else on earth!

<<< Story from P---
   
     Toward the end of my senior year at PCC, I recall a few days when my
father and brother came to visit.  They had never been to PCC before, and so
I was eager for them to be impressed, but anxious at not knowing what bizarre
thing might happen.
     During one of the days they both came to the chapel service.  I sat on
the very last row that students sat in up in the balcony.  There were two or
three empty rows behind me, and so I told them they could just sit up there.
 The row monitor sat right next to me, and when we arrived in the auditorium,
I told her that I would sit in the row immediately behind where we sat
because of my father and brother being there.  I obviously wanted to sit with
them.  She said it was fine (I was relieved to have her permission, this girl
who was younger than me. . .).
     So, I sat with my father and brother right behind my normal seat.  Well,
one of the residence managers came up to me afterwards and asked to speak to
me alone.  I said sure.  He gave me demerits for not sitting in my assigned
seat!  Keep in mind that I was 23 years old, sitting ONE seat behind my
assigned one, with the row monitor's permission and with my father and
brother.  I guess there is no such thing as "spirit of the law"???

<<< Well, if there is, it sure has a funny way of being shown!

############################################################

IV.     ESSAY

         A.  "Some Thoughts on Motives"
                  By: lupos

     When initiating any kind of conflict or discussion, a Believer must ask
himself what his motive is.  Is it to tear down?  Is it the right time? 
Would Jesus act this way?  Is it necessary?  We have considered these
things, and we believe our motives are proper.  Should a leader in a church
be involved in immorality, it would hardly be "stiring up discord" to
confront him.  But what if the rest of the church said "Oh, it's his
decision.  You just leave it alone and let God take care of it."  That's
ludicrous, of course, but a reasonable parallel to our situation. 
Students shadowed?  Jesus has no part of that I promise you.  Being
anonymously accused:

Matthew 18:15-17 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee,
go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear 
thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that 
in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he
neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a 
publican.

     How can we ignore that?  Shouldn't a Christian college support Biblical
conflict resolution?  Yet, they don't, and for us to point that out is
"stirring up discord"?  If so, I claim good company, for our Savior was a
bit of a troublemaker himself.  No, you cannot fear discussion.  You
cannot discount every disagreement as rebellion.  How does the Bible say
we learn - "as iron sharpens iron" - there must be room for legitimate,
intelligent discussion, and its only PCC myoptic regulations which make
this sort of newsletter necessary.  Why must it be "underground."  Cannot
COLLEGE STUDENTS receive information and interpret it for themselves?  We
have received some spirited responses thus far,  which shows you are not
easily swayed by are points.  Thats fine, just use your mind and make your
own decisions, in light of the Word God has given us.  Don't fear opposing
views if you are ready to defend your own.  Doesn't it bother you when you
say "you must be bitter to attack the school," yet at the same time can't
think of any Biblical argument to defend the school's policies?  (YES, you
CAN defend a student's required obedience to them, but many times you 
CAN'T defend the policies themselves.)

     In closing, let me "twist" the words of one of our respondents.  He
vehemently admonished us, saying, "its not your fight, let God take care
of it...He could handle it much better than I could."  To this we respond
yes.  God can handle it - as we are pointing out.  The school is the one
who fears to let "God handle it."  They must force obedience rather than
let it be an outpouring of His Spirit.  To make a man-made rule is to put
a stumbling block in a brother's way, for the Lord knows there is no way we
can obey on our own.  Jesus was so disgusted with the pharisees for that
very reason: creating more rules than the simple perfect ones in God's Law.
God never banned drums or said you couldn't sit in the grass with a
girl, or take a walk in the moonlight - this is man's law.  Why?  Let God
handle it.  He is infinitely better qualified than the school or me or
you.  God does not fear our freedom.  Why should the school?

underthemercy,  lupos


         B.  "Understanding PCC Ideology: A Comparison"
                  By: Leibniz

     A.  Reason for the change in topics.
     At the outset of these comments, we would like to clarify why we decided
to change the topic from "inconsistencies in beach policy" as specified in
last week's issue.  It has come to our attention that a tragic and
unfortunate event has occurred within the PCC community and that this tragedy
occurred at the beach.  We feel that out of respect to the student, the
student's family and the student's friends we should refrain from discussing
beach policy for the time being.
     The issues we intend to address and will address at a future time,
however, have nothing to do with what we understand to be the circumstances
surrounding this event, although it should be noted that we know very little
of the surrounding circumstances.  Be that as it may, there is never a
shortage of things to write about . . . 

     B.  Introduction.
     Take a step back for a moment.  Take a step out of the daily events and
circumstances that make up the living environment on campus.  Try to focus on
the underlying premises and philosophies which control the policy-making by
the administration.
     When you do this, it will be much easier to understand the problems we
are trying to point out, and it will also help you to see beyond the petty
differences that often characterize on-campus discussions about what should
be changed.  We believe very strongly that once the fundamental "why" is
understood, the subsequent "how" and "to what extent" will naturally follow.
 In other words, nothing will be changed until the fundamental structure of
why something is there in the first place is properly understood.
     Granted, we are making some fairly large assumptions, i.e., that there
actually IS something that needs to be changed at PCC, but that is precisely
one of the things we are trying to address, one issue at a time . . . 
     Consider this within the context of a logical syllogism.  Everyone
normally agrees with the major premise we explicitly set forth.  However, the
differences in opinion are in regards to the minor premises.  PCC provides
you with one, and we provide you with an alternative minor premise.  Of
course, this results in two opposing conclusions, and what we are trying to
do is to get you, the administration and anyone else who is willing to listen
to us to step back and stop looking at the conclusions, but rather focus on
the minor premise.  This is where the debate lies.
     For instance, consider this illustrative syllogism: mistrust is
generally evidenced by extreme control; PCC exercises extreme control over
its students; therefore, there is a high degree of probability that PCC
doesn't trust its students.  Now, there are variables that come into play
here, which is why we are simply using it as an example.
     Virtually everyone agrees with the major premise - mistrust is generally
evidenced by extreme control, and this is the case with most of our
arguments.  However, the disagreement comes when we provide the minor premise
(PCC exercises extreme control over its students) and the conclusion
(therefore, there is a high probability that PCC doesn't trust its students).
 We can talk all we want to about the conclusion, but the problem is never
really solved unless we come to an agreement about the minor premise.
     PCC's minor premise would be that it doesn't exercise "extreme control"
over its students; therefore, based on the facts of this syllogism, there
would be a very low probability that PCC mistrusts its students.  The Student
Voice, on the other hand, provides the alternative premise, that PCC DOES
exercise "Extreme control," and so the conclusion changes.
     Understand where we are coming from, for the official policy of PCC is
also coming from the same place.  All of these things that, as students, we
feel are ridiculous, don't simply come into being out of nowhere (although we
do wonder about that sometimes. . .).  They are based on premises that are
often subtle and difficult to understand.
     Well, we said all of that for two reasons.  First, understand the
debate.  Not every issue will address the problem in as concise a manner as
we have just done, so in order to best understand how to focus on the issue,
try to break each argument on both sides down to its fundamental parts.
 Second, consider how the issue of motives fits in - IT DOESN'T.  Regardless
of the motives of the one presenting the argument, the elements remain the
same.  Go back through the previous syllogism picturing us, the presenter of
the argument, as possessing the worst possible motives we could be capable
of. . . .  Now go through it again with us having the purest of motives. . .
..  It is the same either way, isn't it?  We still receive the occasional
message berating our motives, and we continue to reply, "Ok.  Fine, so what?"
 Again, like a broken record, motives are irrelevant.

[By the way, this lesson in logic was free.  We bet you would be hard pressed
to get this at PCC, even if you paid for it (which you undoubtedly would!). .
.. .]

     C.  Set up of the issue.
     With the upcoming elections fast approaching, one of the aspects of
campus life is an emphasis by the administration and various student body
organizations to "get involved."  Voter drives, campaign work and possible
visits by elected officials are events that characterize the campus of PCC
during the fall of an election year.  This is good, and it is surely the way
things ought to be.
     While the administration does a good job, as we recall, of maintaining
the line between support for particular candidates (which is illegal) and
support for the process and general statements of principle (which is
perfectly legal), there is no question as to which side of the ideological
spectrum PCC falls on.  In the latest PCC UPDATE, there was a full page
devoted to encouraging you to vote.  And the clear implication was that you
should vote for those with conservative beliefs.  Phrases used such as
"Christian and family values," "Check. . . regarding. . . conservative
issues," and "Information is available through organizations such as
pro-life, etc." leave no doubt but that PCC supports political conservatism
     However, it is interesting to observe that the way in which PCC operates
internally and the ideology that characterizes the relationship between
administration and student is an amazing parallel to political LIBERALISM,
not political CONSERVATISM.  
     We are not trying to say that one side of the political spectrum is good
or bad or that one is better than the other.  They are all legitimate
positions to hold.  We do not believe that only "conservative" ideas should
prevail or that no "liberal" should hold office.  We are maintaining a
neutral position on this issue (oddly enough. . .).  We are simply pointing
out that while PCC "talks the talk" of conservatism, they "walk the walk" of
liberalism.  In other words, there seems to be some hypocrisy going on here.
 Let us explain, and you be the judge. . . .
   
     In American culture, what is it that characterizes someone as a
"liberal"?  What are the factors we would point out to say that this
individual is a liberal, but that person is a conservative?  There are three
basic characteristics of liberalism:

     1.)  The government is often more capable of making decisions about your
life than you are;
     2.)  More rules, rather than fewer rules, are needed to ensure that you
fit into the state's overall plan; and 
     3.)  There is a deviation from the fundamental philosophy.

     D.  A Comparison.
     1.)  Making decisions.  The governing bodies of our society obviously
have an interest and a responsibility to make certain decision about our
lives.  No one, except for perhaps a few militia organizations, would
disagree with this.  The disagreement is over the extent to which our
governing bodies take over our decision-making process.  The liberal
philosophy holds, at least implicitly, that some people are ordained by
certain means to exert control over their fellow citizens.  There is a belief
that this ordained "elite" is smarter and wiser than the average person on
the street, and so while the "man on the street" may decide that what is best
for him is to help out those in need by donating to a particular private
charity organization, for example, the liberal idea will say no, the man on
the street ought to pay a percentage of his earnings to the government, and
the government will then decide who is in most need of these funds.  Or this
person may decide for himself that he, in fact, doesn't want to help out the
needy at all.  Whether right or wrong, liberalism will tell this person that
his decision is not good, and so it must be preempted by the elite's better
judgment.
     A conservative will say that each individual is more capable of
determining where and how his money should be spent.  They would say that you
should have the freedom to choose for yourself.  Now, this is obviously
over-simplifying what is in reality considerably more complex, but we think
the point is clear.  Conservative ideology maintains that individuals should
have more freedom and more latitude to make more decisions for themselves.
 Liberalism maintains that the more educated, ordained elite should be the
ones who make many of these decisions instead of the average citizen.
     Now, while PCC supports conservative ideology in politics, it acts in a
way that is more closely synonymous with liberalism.  The student's
decision-making process is greatly reduced because the administration, for
some reason, thinks itself more capable of making the student's decisions for
them.  For the same reason that liberalism will curb the choices for the
general population - for what is perceived by them to be the greater good of
society over the individual's interest, PCC likewise curbs the choices
students can make for themselves - for the greater good of the "society" over
that of the individual student.  Again, we do not mean to make a value
judgment on these decisions, we are simply pointing out the ironic parallel.
     The next time a professor praises America for its freedoms, ask him/her
why, if it's so great, does the administration operate on the complete
opposite premise.  We guarantee you an interesting class discussion. . . .

     2.)  More rules v. fewer rules.  A natural result of liberalism's rescue
from our own judgment is the influx of rules, rules and more rules.  Taking
away a group's ability to decide for itself requires the imposition of rules
to govern those who do make those decisions and rules defining and limiting
the scope of your choices.  Take for example something like the issue of gun
control.  Prior to the state's denial of a citizen's choice of weapons, there
were no rules governing this area.  Why?  Because a citizen had the freedom
to choose for himself which firearms he would and how many of these firearms
he wanted to have.  Once gun control was introduced into our policy
structure, many new rules were required to govern the citizen's choices and
to define his parameters.
     So it is with PCC.  The more areas of student's lives that they preempt
to themselves, the more rules you have to live with.  It's a natural flow.
 The more conservative this country is, the fewer rules we will have to live
by.  For PCC to support conservative ideas means that it must likewise accept
the premise that our society will have fewer rules.  Yet the more liberal
America is, the more rules we will have to live by.  If PCC is going to
continually add more and more rules to its student's lives, it must at least
accept the premise that this closely parallels the ideology of political
liberalism.

     3.)  Deviation from fundamental philosophy.  This is an extremely
detailed corollary of what we are discussing, and so we apologize for giving
it only a sketchy treatment.  Perhaps in a later issue we can explore this
more fully.
     The fundamental philosophy that this country was founded on was that
people should be free to live as they see fit, within the bounds of as little
restriction as could be imposed while still maintaining a civil society.
 Whatever the merits or flaws are to this idea, it is our fundamental
philosophy.  Conservatism maintains that we should adhere as much as we can
to these traditional principles.  Liberalism on the other hand, sees our
society as a continuous process of evolution, and therefore, our foundation
must also evolve.  Again, regardless of whether or not this is right or
wrong, liberalism is essentially the process of deviating from the
traditional foundation.  That is precisely what defines the distinction
between a conservative and a liberal, in any context.
     The fundamental philosophy of PCC, supposedly, is Christianity and the
gospel.  It takes only an elementary understanding of Scripture to recognize
that New Testament Christianity is about freedom in Christ.  Not freedom to
do whatever we want, of course, but freedom to be who God has made us, and
freedom to serve God through the influence of the Holy Spirit.  This is what
separates Christianity from, say, Islam.  Islam imposes many rules on its
followers.  Why?  Because of a misunderstanding of who Christ was and what He
came to offer us.
     To impose a ridiculous amount of rules and burdens for students to
follow in the name of a "Christian environment" simply misunderstands what a
"Christian environment" should be.  Christ said that people will know that
you are His disciples if you show love one towards another.  He didn't say
that people would know that you are His because everyone adheres to a certain
set of man-made rules.  The Pharisees would have loved PCC.  They would have
loved all of the rules and regulations and the heavy focus on the outward
image.  But remember, this is precisely what Christ continually rebuked them
for.
     What type of Christian image do you think is portrayed to the outside
community by PCC?  The Christianity of Christ?  Or the Christianity of the
Pharisees?
     The point, though, is that like liberalism, PCC has deviated from its
fundamental philosophy - Christ.  Now, we don't for a second doubt the
sincerity and good intentions of the administration, just as if we were
ardent conservatives we shouldn't doubt the sincerity and good intentions of
liberals.  We just want to recognize the parallel.

     E.  Conclusion.
     So what is the bottom line?  What is the purpose of these comments?  It
is simply this: during this season of elections when the school is fervently
portraying its patriotic spirit, understand the paradox.  Understand that
while PCC "talks" one way, it often "walks" another.  Also understand that
perhaps there ought to be a re-thinking of what it is that PCC appreciates
about this country and why.  Is it to have the freedom to impose Pharisaical
Christianity on its students?  We certainly hope not.

     Leibniz

###########################################################

V.     THIS PAST WEEK'S COMMENTS FROM THE READERS


>>> Comment #1 from J--- (with The Voice's comments interspersed)

**The Voice wrote in the last essay. . .
>     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.

How will an underground newspaper accomplish this?  You can make a
million excellent points, but if the administration (i.e. the Deans and/or
4th floor Executive Officers) never hear what you have to say, what *good*
have you done?  You may have riled up any number of students, but a
student doesn't set policies.

[ This is a valid question.  Remember, ideas have consequences.  There is
nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.  And so on. . .   We
feel that if the proper focus is placed on the right questions by enough
students at the right time, change will occur.  Don't dismiss the power of
the student influence.  Without students, the "4th floor Executive Officers"
have no jobs. <<< The Voice ]

**The Voice continued...
>We do not mean to tear down without providing the means to
>rebuild.

RE: above.  What means are you providing?  Merely a definition of what
you think should be done?  That's not a means.  It's a syllabus with no
follow-up class.  Frankly, you, a remote influence, don't have an means:
just a "voice".

[ Friend, read a history book.  A voice is the greatest "means" we have.
 "For with the MOUTH, confession is made unto salvation. . ."  What other
means could you possibly want than ideas and information?  Things aren't
going to change overnight.  They take time.  Our entire essay last issue
about the DC procedure gave the "means" to rebuild the system.  <<< The Voice
]

**The Voice continued...
>     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's not a tiered penalty system.  If you commit the offense, you earn
whatever the predetermined penalty is.  It would be very difficult for the
deans and other on the DC to mete out demerits based on extenuating
circumstances.  Besides that, students could come up with endless lines
of bull to try to lessen the penalty.  I know I could have.

[ Heavens forbid that we should have a means of a defense!  Is that what you
are saying? And you proved our point, you said that this is not "tiered" but
"predetermined."  Exactly. The penalty is predetermined.  How can you set
someone's penalty without knowing their side of the story?  You obviously
mistrust the students as well. <<< The Voice ]

**The Voice continued...
>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.

If a student is innocent and keeps his mouth shut, he's a fool.  There were
any number of things that I was accused of (particularly my senior year as a
collegian officer) that I simply didn't do.  I always found the DC very
understanding and helpful in those situations.  I *never* received demerits
for an offense I did not commit, nor did I have to fight about it.

[ Well, if this was the case for everyone all of the time, then we wouldn't
have an issue.  But just because something happens to YOU, doesn't mean it
happens the same way to everyone else.  I can speak from personal experience
to that. <<< The Voice ]
 
############################################################

>     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!

What is there to defend?  The DC lets you know who wrote you up for what, and
you confirm or deny.  It's not a question of motives or excuses; it's all
very
black and white.

[ This would be true if it weren't for one minor fact that you've overlooked:
just because you deny a charge doesn't mean the administrative person is
simply going to smile and take the demerits away.  This is ludicrous!  He/she
will challenge your story, and then you have to defend yourself.  So, what is
there to defend?  Everything you do. <<< The Voice ]

**The Voice continued...
>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. 

Yes, but in the U.S. justice system, there are tiers of punishment for crime,
as
well as things like plea bargaining that can actually reduce the severity of
the
crime you were accused of.  The DC isn't dealing with tiered level
punishments
or crimes.  As I said, it's all very black and white - this keeps everybody
honest and straightforward.

[ The reason there are tiers of punishment (which I don't think is an
accurate portrayal of the justice system, but close enough to concede) is
precisely because things ARE NOT black and white.  Circumstances change.  Why
do you think this doesn't happen as well on the PCC campus?  Is there
something mystical about walking onto PCC that makes all extenuating
circumstances go away?  EVERYTHING IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.  This couldn't be
further from the truth, but it illustrates the core PCC thinking.  If
everything were black and white, then the PCC system would work.  However,
life is a rainbow of colors, despite the fact that you are unwilling to look
all around you and see this. <<< The Voice ]

**The Voice continued...
>These demerits affect your record, which affects such things as, well,
>your future career.

Oh, hogwash.  I've worked for three different Christian ministries, as well
as
several secular firms since graduation.  I've never been queryed about my
rather colorful demerited past at PCC.  Besides that, who's really gonna care
that you got a room job demerit, or even that you got 25 for going
off-campus without a pass?  If you actually got into a conversation with a
prospective employer about demerits, it would only take a couple minutes
explanation to dispell any questions he may have had. (Unless you burned
down the Ad building or something.)

[ Well, you must not have worked for any employer who cared what kind of past
you had. Most decent employers want to know if you have ever been subject to
any disciplinary sanctions in college. But again, you make a fundamental
error in logic.  Just because something happened to you does not mean it
happens to everyone else the same way.  And let's just say that you are right
about being able to explain everything away in just a few minutes, why should
grown adults in the situation of an interview, explain why he or she got in
trouble every week for not making their bed, for being late to class and for
not wearing a belt?  If you don't think this will put a bad taste in
someone's mouth, think again. <<< The Voice ]

**The Voice continued...
>You ought to at least be given some kind of adequate notice of what it
>is you are charged with.

Why?  To prepare a plausible lie?  DC ain't the OJ Simpson murder trial.
You did it or you didn't.

[ No, to prepare a plausible defense.  Stop being so mistrustful of the
students.  If they are going to lie, they will lie either way.  At least
level the playing field for the honest ones. <<< The Voice ]

**The Voice continued...
>     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.

You've hit on part of the problem with the demerit system, but not the
core of IMO.  You'd eliminate a whole lot of problems with demerits if
*students* could not write up fellow students.  Most students do not have
the maturity or discernment needed to handle a demerit pad with
consistency.

**The Voice continued...
>     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.

Oh, there's plenty of prejudice.  Little Sally gets in a snit with her
suitemate Brunhilda and writes her up for too short of a skirt.
Sure, it happens.  See above.  Most students can't handle the
*responsibilty* of a demerit pad.

**The Voice continued...
>     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.

Uh, you're getting a little blurry here.  There is only a few offences you
might get demerits for that would affect the rest of your life.  It's only
helpful to know who is accusing you if *you didn't commit the
offense*.  'Cuz then you wanna up and whap your accuser up-side the
head for inconveniencing you.  BUT, you can simply say, "I didn't do
it," and the see where it goes.  For me, it was always, "Well, ok, we'll
take the demerits off."

If something comes up that will "affect rest of your life", it generally
means you screwed up big time and got yourself shipped.  I've never
heard of people being shipped who didn't earn it or who got shipped
despite their total denial of the accusation and a lack of proof.

If you have specific examples not based upon the hearsay and
gossip that runs rampant at PCC, be so kind as to post them.

[ We have plenty of examples.  Here is one.  A senior who was days away from
graduating, and who had a relatively good record got caught with his
girlfriend off campus.  No, he wasn't having sex, he wasn't doing anything
but violating the PCC rule against normal social behavior.  He was expelled
from school.  Would you say that he "earned" it?  Sure, he broke the rules,
and even though there could probably be no more ridiculous rule than not
being allowed, as an adult, to even speak with someone of the opposite sex
outside PCC, it was a rule, and he should have followed it.  But expelled?
 Surely you don't buy your own argument? <<< The Voice ]

**The Voice continued...
>An additional requirement should be
>that the accuser be required to answer to the DC if the accused requests it.

Yeah, well, I see your point, but I mean, who cares?  That should only
happen if indeed your denial is not accepted.

[ Who cares?  The person who doesn't have it as well as you do.  The person
whose denial is met with dibelief and rejection.  That's who cares. <<< The
Voice ]

**The Voice continued...
> 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.

Good call, StudentV.  Not that I can do a thing about it, but it's a good
idea.

[ Way to have that positive attitude! <<< The Voice ]

**The Voice continued...
>     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.

Uh, wait a minute.  In past letters, you've said the Student Voice was
created to give students an anonymous voice in the face of possible
reprisals for speaking out.  HELLO! - you're anonymous and you claim to not
even
be a student! What's up with that?

[ I have no idea what you're asking... <<< The Voice ]

Why am I anonymous?  Oh, you know who I am ;)  It's just more fun this way.
When you 'fess up, maybe I will to. BTW, feel free to quote me exactly.  You
seemed a bit bracket happy the last time you relayed to the group something
I'd mentioned.  (Another reason I'm anonymous.)  Leave people's opinions
alone or don't bother posting them.  You've got good points, but so do a lot
of people.  Let their points stand without your editing them - you've muddied
some things I've said in the past - I don't appreciate it.  My statements are
generally very clear and mean just what they say.

[First, I have no idea who you are.  Second, when you point out one single
time that we have diluted anything anyone has said, including yourself,
please do let us know.  This you are wrong on.  The only thing we fail to
post are boring, repetitive and perhaps slanderous messages, but when we post
a message we post the whole thing (except, again, something that may be
slanderous).  You are not the first one who has accused us of twising
people's opinions yet when asked to give an instance, each accuser grows
silent.  Give us one example, and we will publicly apologize. <<< The Voice ]

REALITY CHECK


**************************************************

<<< Comment #2

***lupos wrote last issue...
>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!


<<< Comment from C--

Staff housing belongs to PCC.  You live there as a benefit of your
employment with PCC.  If PCC wants to charge rent to people who do not
work for the ministry yet live in their housing, they have every right.

I've lived in several apartment complexes.  Without exeception, I could
not have an additional person living with me for longer than a week or
so without having to ante up rent to my landlord.


To which lupos responds:

Of course PCC owns the housing and can manage it however they see fit, but
my point is, in light of its commitment to Christianity, how OUGHT
they manage it.  True, they shouldn't encourage freeloaders, but "worldy"
apartments certainly don't turn away the children-how much worse that we
should receive that treatment from fellow believers.  Also, although the
school provides the living accomodations, they also pay a lower salary,
which includes your housing, so you are in effect paying for it, although
you never see the money.  Of course, this completely stops a family from
building any equity in a home and achieving any sort of independence, 
while living in conditions where the father is NOT the head of the
household, but the school, which imposes its own set of rules (The
worthiness or validity of those rules is irrelevant, the point is the the
decisions are taken out of the father's and the family's hands).

you might say that the school has a responsibility to see its property is
used wisely, and a "liberal" (God forbid) policy could be abused.  Quite
true.  Perhaps God did not intend for PCC to build a little city, but
created it simply to educate young people.  Running the home ought to be
left to the family, with the input of Christian friends and a church. 
There should not be the fear of instantly losing your home as well as job
should you come into conflict with the school (which is not infallable).

This is leaving the subject a bit, but I hope will lead to a valuable
discussion.  Perhaps any staff reading this would comment on the schools
policy and your feelings.

**************************************************

<<< Comment #3 from J---

    I would like to make a few brief comments about The Student Voice,
the issues it intends to confront, and its motives for confronting them.
First of all, I think an available forum such as this has long been
overdue at PCC.  Too often, students become so frustrated with the
regulations at PCC that their relationship with God suffers.  The Student
Voice will provide a means of expressing concerns and differences of
opinion about the structure and organization of PCC without fear of any
disciplinary action by the administration.  I do not think that
frustration with the way things are handled by the administration is
unjustifiable, immoral, or even ungodly. God has created us as human
beings with the ability to reason.  It is an inherent propety of being
human.  Therefore, we naturally expect to be given valid reasons for why
certain things are the way they are. Unfortunately, at PCC it seems that
the administration has decided to stifle any type of conversation with
students which would reasonably explain why they have structured
the college in a particular way and which would solicit the students
reactions and responses.  The Student Voice will provide a way for us as
students to express our problems with PCC and to decide together what
can be done to alleviate those problems.  Whether our solutions are ever
implemented by the administration remains to be seen.  However,
at least with The Student Voice we can feel that our concerns
have been addressed to the student community.
     Secondly, I would like to make a comment about the motives 
of the editors and founders of The Student Voice.  I think that
fundamentally they are concerned about the Christian environment at PCC 
and intend to improve it.  Any implicit anger or vengeance towards PCC,
while not necessarily right, is a natural reaction to having spent four 
years in a college community whose administrators refused to allow 
them to fully participate in all aspects of the community.  However, we
do not and cannot know the hearts and minds of the editors.  Their
motives are fundamentally between them and God.  We cannot ignore the
issues they raise simply because we have decided that their motives are 
wrong.    
     Lastly, I would like to make a comment about the letter to new
subscribers.  Regardless of their motives, I think the editors have a
tendency at times to use somewhat inflammatory language that may spark an
unwanted reaction in their subscribers.  The words we use to describe
things are powerful, and I would suggest that the editors use
extreme caution in addressing these issues.  We do not want to cause
frustrated students at PCC to respond improperly. 

**************************************************

<<< Comment #4

"If God was dead, PCC would not miss a beat because it surely doesn't rely on
Him-the machine is in full swing."  
--Student V, Issue 1, No. 2  

[***Please note that this was a comment from a reader, not a statement by The
Student Voice ]

You may not be bitter and I, of course, cannot judge your motives, but I
believe that the preceding comment is unkind and malicious.  If you are a
concerned Christian brother that only wants to see good, please encourage,
exhort, and pray for a ministry that God is using to train men and women for
His work.  

[ We try not to censure ideas.  This is not a "malicious" idea.  In fact, it
is quite plausible, and although it may not be true, it is an idea of
someone's and therefore should not be discarded.  Other than that, your
advice is correct and will be followed. >>> The Voice ]

I believe you are so often thought of as bitter because your words have a
harsh, sarcastic tone that I do not believe characterizes the Lord Jesus
Christ.  He was the epitome of kindness and compassion.  Perhaps if we could
detect more of those traits in your "essays" we would believe you had genuine
concern for God's ministry--Pensacola Christian College.

[ Christ was the epitome of kindness and compassion, except when He was
talking to the Pharisees, Sadducees, Jewish rulers and money changers in the
temple.  There is a season for everything under the sun, Solomon once said.
 While there is some truth to what you say, we still cannot agree that PCC is
somehow above criticism and sarcasm. <<< The Voice ]

Please, as a recommendation, before you write anything else, spend a good
deal of time in prayer asking God for His wisdom and His direction.  Then be
sure you proof-read (it can't hurt).  If you aren't bitter, then you will be
able to detect hurtful jabs that may not be your intention.  Then finally,
ask everyone on your mailing list to become pray warriors with you (I don't
believe you have mentioned that, as of yet, in any of your correspondence).
 If you want to see change at PCC, ask God to do it, not the students.  If
you want to see a mighty work done--allow God to use His power.  He is still
able to do exceeding abundantly above all we can ask or think.

Student V, whoever you are, I am praying for you.  I have spent many hours in
prayer for you.  I pray that God will work in your life as He continues to
work at PCC.  God is blessing this year--I know, I've seen it.  There are
students that are getting saved, students that are growing as Christians--not
because of PCC, the place, but because of God's work in their lives.  Please
pray for us.

[ Good advice... <<< The Voice ]

**************************************************

<<< Comment #5 from ---

Whoever it was that sent me a "subscription" to "StudentV" -- I thank 
you.  I've been hearing rumors of it's existence for several weeks now, 
and my curiousity was overwhelming, I must say.

My only concern now is, is this subscription going to cost me something?  
Is it like all those hidden PCC fees that bring our tuition total to 
well over 5,000 dollars?  Will I eventally have to pay for it in the 
long run?

These questions are merely rhetorical, you understand.  I doubt 
seriously that those overseeing the production of this newsletter would 
demand "tribute" for offering such a selfless service.

The great thing about loging onto an email "magazine" is that, unlike 
the kind of periodical which you can physically leaf through, when you 
open it, it doesn't dump out 27 subscription reply postcards onto your 
feet.

It's cliche, but I have so much to say that I hardly know where to 
begin.  Where does one start when one's been harboring secret opinions 
for over 5 years?  Since 1991, I have been storehousing my thoughts and 
opinions about "college policy" and other sort of whatnot about this 
college which continues to vex me, with no "kindred spirit" to share 
them with most of the time.

But now there's someone there to listen.

And like others who must surely have been skeptical to learn that a 
thing such as StudentV exists, I had my doubts about the motivating 
factors which spawned this newsletter, and who was actually behind it 
all.  It would be just like the college to bring such a thing as this 
into existence to "weed out" those disgruntled, non-comformist individ- 
uals who have "an unhealthy attitude toward the college," as I once 
heard the Rev'rend Mullenix say from the platform.  So, I'm sure you can 
understand my reluctance to embrace a personal freedom I've been denied 
for 5 years now.

So, we students actually have a voice now...wow.  But do we really, I 
wonder.  By that I mean that I doubt that, were administration aware of 
StudentV's existence (which they already undoubtably are), would they 
ever publicly acknowledge our opinions or their mistakes, or would they 
continue to do what they do every day, and just keep ignoring the error 
within their "system", and dismiss our opinions as inconsequential?

When those who need to hear the truth won't listen, why should we even 
bother expressing the animosities which eat at us from within like some 
ravenous cancer?  Because it makes us feel better?  No, I think not.  
Sure, we all must find some way to vent our frustrations or we'll 
suddenly burst into flame.  (I find writing a story in which I methodi- 
cally eliminate my enemies in some slow painful way, or have them mauled 
by wild coyotes to be quite theraputic.)  But that shouldn't be the 
purpose of a newsletter like this.  I discovered the purpose as I read 
the letter to new subscribers -- I found it encouraging and quite 
refreshing to see that I'm not alone in this place, that there truly is 
someone (several someones, actually) around here who dares to be a "free 
thinker" -- usually a label which liberals proudly stamp into their 
foreheads, but here, in this place, the term is all too appropriate.

StudentV doesn't exist just solely to give us an opportunity to scream; 
it's here to encourage us, to let us know that there ARE others like us, 
that someone out there is listening, and they DO care.

Thanks, StudentV, you'll never know how much this means to me.

Shine,

"5th Wheel"

[ Well, thank you... <<< The Voice ]

***************************************************

<<< Comment #6 from A--- 

Wow....what a screen full.   Once again I commend the Voice on trying to get
the point across.  However, change will never happen at PCC as long as the
leadership believes that they are God.  I do not say this in a manner to put
down the school.  I say this in the way that Jim Baker started off doing the
right thing and somewhere along the line it got out of hand.  This is the
same with PCC...it is out of hand.  PCC is not real, it is not a training
ground,  it is an educational facility that bases itself on control and
guilt.  
I totally agree on the essay of the DC committee.  I have many times been in
the position of the defendant.  You cannot defend yourself or you are subject
to greater penalties.  
My four years at PCC were fantastic educationally (classroom wise).  I
consider the rest of my time 4 years of prison.  My sister spent 3 years at a
high security prison.  We went throught several similiar expereinces related
to control.  I do not tear down the school when someone asks I am honest.  I
stayed for the education and put up with the rest.  I learned how the game
was played and I was a willing participant.  You have to be willing to
finish.  I did not agree and do not agree with their religious and standards
philosophy. 
I am a Southern Baptist.  I love contemporary Christian music. (Truth, 4-Him,
Avalon, Kathy Tand Mark Lowry.)  I read the NIV version of the Bible.  But
you know what is most important that PCC has over looked---I am saved and I
love My Lord Jesus Christ.  I am not acceptable to PCC.  But, it doesn't
matter, I am acceptable to God due to his blood.  So in closing...PCC won't
change, neither will I.  God is in control and someday PCC will realize that.
 
I also add this to the writer that pens to all that disagree with PCC are
tearing it down and citing scripture to back his views.  This is the type of
Christian that made me not accept Christ for 21 years....I wanted the Lord
but not the people that came with being a Christian.  I finally realized
those type of Christians can only rationalize their sacrifices (clothes,
music, friends, etc)as being good Christians instead of accepting God's
absolute free gift as that -FREE, they add all the other sacrifices to their
Christianity to be acceptable to themselves.  I hope I explained that ok....

##########################################################

VI.     YOUR THOUGHTS

          Next week's essay will be on a Christian's response to Halloween.
Should a Christian participate in this "holiday"?  All this week, The Student
Voice would like to entertain your thoughts and opinions regarding this
question.

##########################################################

<<< E-mail us at studentv@aol.com
     
##########################################################

THE STUDENT VOICE / PCC's alternative newsletter