The more I thought about the letter, the more uncomfortable I became. To my surprise, I found myself upset because in disagreeing with the action of Shorter’s administration, the author of the letter assumed a similar stance to that which Shorter displayed. Instead of pointing out how Shorter could diffuse the antagonism toward faculty, staff and students, he instead exposed a side that, surprisingly, was as prejudicial as he accused Shorter’s administration of being.
By volunteering his own set of “vulgar lyrics” for which the president’s wife was seen to appreciate with her laughter and applause, he indicated to me that censorship is OK — if it’s yours! That other people laughed and applauded was a strike against them as well as the “lyrics” put the writer alongside the president of the college in being in favor of the changes occurring at Shorter!
The language and tone of the article displeased me because the writer displayed none of the love and charity that his “faith” was intended to foster.
While I oppose the changes I have seen taking place at Shorter University, posing “unreasonableness” against “unreasonableness” is no solution.
Anger distorts the arguments, and leads the opposition to assume they are “more” right than those who oppose them.
Forgiveness and reason are better alternatives. In time, it is such arguments that may make a real difference.