Art: Required or Not?

Alex Kesselring (’12):
“I don’t think it should be required. Some people just aren’t artistic; some people want top use their time for other things.”



Oliver Goodridge (’11):
“I’m kind of on the fence; I’m not really artsy, but I can see the need for balance.”



Kathleen Webb (’10):
“It would be totally unbalanced if we didn’t… one credit is not that much to ask!”




Meredith Nuttycombe (’09):
“Art is the laxative for the constipation of the soul. I support art.”

Out of Iraq

by Logan Ferrell (’ 11)

The nation is now officially halfway through the “first hundred days” of the Obama administration. For many of the actions of the past weeks, it is still too early to truly judge results; only the coming years will reveal the full economic impacts of Obama’s policies and the virtue of his many appointments. Among these decisions, which hold serious implications for the future, was President Obama’s February 28th announcement that US troop levels in Iraq will be drawn down by August 2010, and the “combat mission” ended.

Taken at face value, this ideal proposal sounds great, as most are eager to bring our troops out of harm’s way.

However, if hastened, this policy shift could prove a catalyst for further domestic unrest within the fledgling nation of the new Iraq. It is that attempt, to rush redeployment, as well as the unclear goals of the remaining force, which worries me.

For, I think it is worth noting, that U.S. goals were always “to train, equip, and advise” the Iraqi government; however, in order to achieve that role, a basic security must be maintained, and that is what lead to a combat role. These roles, combat and advisory, are not as President Obama would suggest so easily or clearly separated; especially in an operation where previous attempts to hastily turn over control to Iraqi forces saw the nation veer towards civil war and chaos.

Already, the currently arranged Status of Forces of Agreement with the Iraqi government calls for US troops to take a more “advisory” role by withdrawing from Iraqi cities in 2009, and then the nation entirely in 2011.

It seems to me, that to suddenly draw down troop levels a mere year before troops are scheduled to leave anyway, greatly diminishes the crucial role a strong force presence could play in the days leading to the 2011 transition.

If anything, this time prior to such a transition will require the highest degree of security possible, and that entails a troop presence not plagued by cuts and constant changes in what their role is called.

Overall, Iraq has seen gains in both stability and security. However, those achievements should not be jeopardized by an overoptimistic depletion of forces. Speaking to the current time table, ensures time to evaluate the situation and ensure that the U.S. does not leave behind a nation incapable of being controlled by Iraqis.

Broadening Horizons

by Reilly Henson ('11)

Maggie Walker is widely known for its talented, well-rounded students who bring all sorts of unique and valuable assets to the school. Whatever a student’s forte, that student can flourish in an environment which encourages variety and expression the way our diverse school does.

In every student’s high school career here, he or she takes a total of 32 courses, about half of which are mandatory (core classes). To ensure that students have enough experience in each subject, a diploma requires specific numbers of credits in each subject. That’s reasonable, right? If a student only took classes in one subject, he or she would be ill-prepared for almost any career. So why should art be excluded from these necessary subjects? Art (including both the visual arts and music) is undoubtedly a worthy study.

While not all students are inclined to take an art course, by doing so they are exposed to new methods of expression, and may even discover hidden talents. Some complain that there is no room in their schedules for an art course, yet art gives students a creative outlet and can reduce the stress of other classes.

Others who don’t consider themselves “artistic” may think that art classes will waste their time, but even art-related courses (such as art history) that are less hands-on can allow students to see into a very different world filled with individuality, controversy, and excitement.

If not for art classes, many people would be oblivious to the possibilities of the art world, and in my opinion, that is just as bad as missing out on math, science, history, or English.

An Unnecessary Requirement

by Logan Ferrell ('11)

It is that time of year again; that time, when all MLWGS students are forced to confront their futures, whether they are ready or not. That’s right, another year’s scheduling has come around, and all other worries are temporarily eclipsed in the mad rush to squeeze in, cut out, or discover new classes for the coming year.

It is that mad rush, and my own attempts to balance a schedule, which have led me to a new conclusion about our credit requirements. Firstly, let me say, that I accept the fact that there must be some curriculum framework and some universal academic requirements.

However, outside the realm of basic and practical knowledge, students are generally allowed to decide which classes are not only interesting to them, but which may best serve them in higher education and the real world.

That said, there remains still a major impediment to allowing student created schedules, and that is the fine arts credit required by the state. It has always seemed to me, that the main purpose of a school such as ours is to provide an environment for students with focused interests, while not necessarily excluding all courses outside the realm of “government and international relations”.

Seeing that, there are other schools focused on other areas of interest such as art. So, there exists the opportunity for students whose priority is art, to learn in an environment based on that. Even so, our school still offers optional art courses for people who have multiple such areas of interest; so students who really wish to focus on art have even more opportunity to do so of their own initiative.

It is in that initiative to that I find a problem with the fine arts requirement; art cannot and should not be mandated. For it is based in flexibility and freedom of expression, as any sort of culture, it is created and appreciated by those who feel a deep personal passion for the subject.

Likewise, that passion cannot be artificially instilled in those who do not feel a connection; and it should not be forced upon those who wish to grow and learn in other areas.

In the end, I maintain the view; that an education should be built upon the skills and talents of an individual, and how those may be utilized in later life. To confine and regulate classes, at the cost of keeping students from their true passions; is a desecration of the very freedom which is art.

TV Not a Government Responsibility

By Logan Ferrell ('11)

These days, it is hard to turn on the TV or open the paper without hearing or reading more bad news. More people have lost their jobs, another business has imploded, and Gaza has seen another round of bombing .

In times like these, where it is easy to believe that the world we were accustomed to is crumbling around us, it is comforting that our government has maintained clear objectives and prioritized the issue most important to the American people: television.

Cynicism aside, it is true that the United States House of Representatives spent this past Wednesday debating not the economy or national defense, but rather which date would be best for the switch to digital television. I had no idea that this was such a contentious and crucial issue. However, for an issue that has now been the subject of debate in both houses and statements by the new president himself, it must be.

The switch from analog to digital television originally planned for this February has now been postponed to mid-June of this year because not enough people have had time to “prepare.” To prepare, people are expected either to purchase a new television or a converter for the one they already have. While people have rediscovered the importance of saving and frugality, they are encouraged to run out and buy an entirely unnecessary leisure activity. The converters may be purchased using a coupon provided by the federal government for that purpose alone; that’s right, the government is spending money so that every citizen may improve the quality of their television experience.

People are forced to assume that the move is to improve their viewing, as the only concrete advantage accorded to the transition is better picture quality. So far, the government has provided no true explanation for the necessity of the transition, or how it will improve the lives of Americans at all. It seems that such a program, whose benefits have still not been made clear, is no different than if the federal government were to decree that by August, everyone must throw away their CDs and purchase an iPod. It is a program which lends government sponsorship to the very device that dominates entertainment and discourages activities like reading or sports.

I am as guilty as anybody else in enjoying television, but I cannot see how it is either the responsibility or purview of the national legislature to spend time debating television when the nation faces so many more serious problems. Despite my earlier cynicism, I retain hope in an idealistic government focused on the needs of the nation.

That being said, I only hope that this debate is a fleeting one and not a distraction from the problems at hand. This absurd debate over digital television may indeed be a symbol of both the nation and the roots of the current crisis: we have lost sight of what truly matters.

A Better Way

By Elsa Schultze

Drug tests for teachers are a nice idea. After all, who wants children taught by depraved drug addicts? But testing teachers for drug use is a red herring. It's a way of appearing to protect the welfare of students while ignoring much more glaring problems in education. If a teacher is doing drugs and no one can tell, while that may be undesirable, that's private business. The real problem is that it's almost impossible to fire a teacher who acts crazy or is just bad.

In the world of teaching, tenure makes it extremely difficult to fire a teacher, despite consistently bad reviews or under-achieving students. We've all had those bad teachers, and statistically, very few of them were likely to be on drugs. Nationwide, only 4% of teachers use drugs, less than half of the average for all professions. Drug testing is unlikely to uncover substantial problems while incurring a substantial cost.

A teacher using drugs is likely to have erratic behavior and commit other crimes, such as distribution. The other crimes are easy enough to catch and there are plenty of procedures in place to dismiss a teacher who has been convicted of a crime.

Teachers who are not convicted of crimes are likely to have such normal behavior that they can function in everyday society, making them no different from people with other issues who have learned to function. But teachers who have erratic or unsatisfactory behavior are much more common that the incidence of drug use. There is little that can be done about those teachers, who do not teach their subjects well or provide a hostile learning environment. These teachers hurt the school system in a much more subtle way, by undermining confidence in education and the reputation of all teachers.

It is time to create a system to eliminate the dead weight from education, which will require school administrators to be less concerned with the perceived impact of a program, and more concerned with the actual impact.

A better way for school districts to protect education would be to weed out teachers who are ineffective or act as if they are on drugs, rather than try stabbing in the dark to weed out a tiny majority who do abuse drugs at an inefficient cost to the taxpayer.

High Standards

By Logan Ferrell

The jubilee that has accompanied the coming of the inauguration has been tempered in these last few weeks by the continuing coverage of the corruption of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. This event refocused the spotlight on the dark side of American politics, premeditated corruption which betrays the trust of the people.

Concern over the rationalized abuse of power by an office holder evokes an even more disturbing question; what could we expect of public officials who do wrong because they aren’t thinking clearly?

Over the past several months, debates have been raging at the local and state level in West Virginia on whether public school teachers should be subjected to random drug testing. It is a debate which is just as relevant here in Virginia as anywhere else.

However, in my view, it is an issue which transcends the teaching profession and in truth can be applied to every form of public service or government worker.

As I see it, the government “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” should be left in the hands of those willing to devote their careers and time to protecting the sanctity of such a passage.

Our government should be the employer of men and women who come to work wanting to serve, help, and protect the average citizen. This means all those from the teachers of Kanawha County, West Virginia to the lowest receptionist at the Department of the Interior.

We should set the highest standards possible; we should strive to ensure that government, at any level, is run by devoted professionals. It seems to me that a goal such as this necessitates a policy based in preemptive measures.

Future contracts for positions like that of teachers should include the clear definition of testing as a regular process, rather than as a reactionary policy based in single cases. To set the bar and maintain it, testing must be random; it is the only real way to preempt the problem rather than merely reduce it.

It is indeed a frightening spectacle, the idea of a drug addict in a position as crucial to our society as that of a teacher in the classroom or a policeman on our streets.

To hope that addicts will not apply, and treat the occasional case; is not enough to protect the role of public service. Only if we take the necessary steps now, can we secure a future governed by those who have the people’s best interest at heart.

Continuing Debate: A Secular Holiday?

Ben Zavelsky (’12):
“I think that it should be religious; people should be able to express whatever they want: you have to weigh secularism and freedom of expression.”



Esther Lee (’11):
“It depends on what people want to do; you don’t have to keep it secular if you do."

Elsa Schultze (’10):
“I think you say what you say and you shouldn’t have to change it for anyone else: you can’t force people to express a holiday wish (just) so no one else gets their feelings hurt.”

Courtney Wynn (’09):
“I think people have a right to put up Christmas decorations: It’s freedom of expression and even freedom of religion.. It’s a beautiful time of year, and decorations just make it more beautiful.”

Opinion: War on Christmas

by Mitch Caudill ('10)

In some countries the population cares so greatly about separation of church and state that the military will literally overthrow governments that become too religious in nature. While obviously that is a gross overstep for the United States, the truth remains that the society of this nation needs to do more to ensure our secular nature.

The simple fact is that any government, federal or local, should not condone, promote, or reference religion in any manner public or private. The sovereign face of the state should not be distorted by public appeals or recognition of a higher power. The authority and sovereignty of the United States government comes not from any religious divinity, but from the people.

To imply the power derives from a religious divinity, which is all that can be gained from holiday decorations of any sort, warps the very basis of the United States. Now, many will say that the Founders were Christian men, and that American law is derived of Christian values. I would remind them that the Founders were white, land-owning males and according their values, well over half the country would not have the ability to vote or own property.

The state should be impartial, and should derive from the people, not divine right; therefore this holiday season, the decorations should go.

Opinion: An Expression of Individual Freedom

by Logan Ferrell ('11)

Entering into another holiday season, most people are filled with excitement and joy. However dissenters always emerge around this time of year— those who feel that outside the home, celebration of holidays like Christmas should be conducted in a more universal and secular way.

The basis of such arguments of the latter, as cited by its supporters, is that officially sanctioned Christmas events defy the secular idea of American establishments and leave out those not celebrating the sanctioned holiday.

The traditional, and in my opinion inefficient, arguments brought against such a statement, is that America is founded on Christian beliefs and should retain a Christian character. Personally, I find several more logical arguments than that, none straying so close to authorizing a state sponsorship of any one religion.

Likewise, the celebration of any holiday, religious or not, always lies in the hands of the individual, who may express such celebrations as one likes as long as they do not infringe on the actions of another.

Some now say, that to endorse any holiday in particular, via celebration or greeting, is to discriminate against those who do not believe in the said holiday. The notion of celebration is not nearly so exclusive as it is made out to be. Celebration and belief lie within the individual, and it will always be one’s choice to take part in any celebration.

Holiday events, even if government-hosted, are not planned with malicious intent or to purposefully alienate those who chose to celebrate other the holiday. Nor do they represent a targeted trampling of American political principals.

Instead, those who don’t wish to participate in such a event have every right to decline, and even organize their own celebration. There is no censure and no retribution, for the broaching of personal religious beliefs.

When it comes down to it, public celebration of Christmas isn’t an a assault on a secular America; it is the ideal example of everybody’s inalienable right to choose. That is the true embodiment of our privileged religious freedom.

Even ignoring the religious aspects, the holiday offers some inherently good qualities in what it has become. In modern America, the season represents a time for giving to others and service to the community. At no other time of the year do we see those usually committed to selfishness suddenly devoted to generosity and charity.

For many in the world, the freedoms we take for granted are foreign concepts that will never become a reality. As opposed to bickering over the nature of celebration, and discussing the institution of a “war on Christmas,” we should remember the action truly appropriate during this season. That is giving thanks for all that we have.

Opinion: Looking Forward

by Logan Ferrell ('11)

Finally, after a bitter two years of mudslinging and attack ads, the presidential campaign is finally over. Such an ordeal by necessity brings out both the best and worst of the American political system. So, with the sudden lack of a campaign issue to focus on, it seems appropriate to both look back at the consequences and look forward to options for the future.

As a summation to the end of this political season, I offer a plea for moderation and cooperation in the many trying days to come. With the election of a new president, the nation is provided with a chance, to a degree, to begin anew. While many problems of the past remain and a great many new problems are thrust upon our nation with each passing day; a new administration and a new congress have the ability to rectify and make progress. If appropriate initiative is taken, this combination in power has the potential to provide needed reform and bring new opportunities to the people. In affairs abroad, a new administration is left the responsibility of patching up for an era of ignorance and miscommunication, while still fulfilling the many commitments we have already made. The many difficulties of America’s current position require a new spirit of responsibility and practicality; it is the practicality that I fear for most.

As with every election, the recent months have brought out the most divisive and partisan within the nation. In an election dissolved into sound bites, a reasonable debate on policy inevitably turned into a trading of routine party lines and stereotypes. Now, where one party holds sway in both the executive and legislative branches, there is the constant risk of abandoning pragmatic policy for the furthering of party interest. While power may lure a new administration into a hopelessly self-interested mindset, we must remember that healthy debate between those with opposing philosophies almost always leads to a more reasonable solution for all those involved.

As the nation begins its collective countdown to inauguration, those in power must keep in mind the keys to a real and successful policy that benefits American citizens. Practical solutions, based in compromise and discussion instead of partisanship and empty promises; should always be the goal of a real American leader.

McCain = Bush

by Elaine Hillgrove ('10)

The war in Iraq goes on. The economy is in shambles. The earth is running out of renewable resources. And the scary thing is? Citizens of the USA are actually considering electing a man who supported this.

For the past eight years, President Bush has been running our country into the ground. Not every decision he’s made has been bad. He had the highest approval rating ever of a president (90%, in the two days following 9/11). However, most of the major decisions he has made have been bad. He provided tax rollbacks for the top 3% of our country, and limited the amount of regulation on bank loans, both contributing to the economic failure.

Bush also ordered for the military to invade Iraq. The point was to find the WMDs that Iraq was supposedly harboring. However, once it became clear that there were no WMDs anywhere, he didn’t end the war. He kept on sending in more and more troops to fight a war that started with a lie. As a result, over 4,000 Americans have died and over 30,000 have been injured.

As the economy crashes and the war goes on, the earth is failing. We are running out of oil. Rather than figuring out a renewable energy source, Bush has been pushing Congress to reverse the ban on off-shore drilling in ANWAR Oil extraction is an expensive task, and it takes a long time to refine. By the time this is done, solar panel farms could be set up for the same cost. These solar power farms could power over half of the country.

Obama is not the best candidate for president we’ve ever had. He probably isn’t even in the top ten. Obama is very young and inexperienced, and some of his new ideas are a little idealistic. The point is, however, that he has new ideas. John McCain is simply Bush all over again. It’s a number that’s been repeated over and over, but still: 90%. That’s how much of the time McCain voted with Bush. Can America afford another four years of Bush?

McCain wants to continue what Bush has started. He wants tax breaks for everyone, even though the United States is $10.3 trillion in debt. He wants off-shore drilling, even though it will take a while to actually see the oil in the country. McCain wants to continue the war in Iraq, until we “cross the finish line.” The problem with that is that there is no finish line. It isn’t two countries fighting against each other, so there can’t be a clear victory.

McCain, for the most part, is Bush. Americans need to come together and elect someone who isn’t – someone like Barack Obama. In four years, if he’s doing a bad job, then someone else can be elected. But it’s better to elect someone on the chance that they’ll make things better than it is to elect someone knowing they’ll keep things the same.

A Man of His Own

by Logan Ferrell ('10)

Just before the culmination of the presidential campaign, it is easy to forget the true principles behind either candidate. Two years of tough campaigning have swallowed any substance behind the arguments that fill both airwaves and hallway conversation within MLWGS. Looking at the views of the candidates, before the onslaught of pandering and aggressive slogans; one begins to question the growing acceptance of an Obama presidency. That same questioning, has led me to the same conclusions about John McCain that I first had; he is a us

Let us first consider that slogan which seems to most permeate the current electoral conversation; John McCain is equivalent to George W. Bush, and has consistently voted with his White House. The part of this argument that people seem to forget, is that George Bush and John McCain are indeed of the same political party. Political parties, intended as group consisting of people with similar philosophies and beliefs, would therefore logically contain members (i.e. a president and a senator) who agree on and reaffirm each other’s policy decisions. However, to say that this similarity of legislative philosophies makes John McCain equally responsible for the obvious mistakes of President Bush, ignores the fact that John McCain has often publicly opposed the president. While the media may have forgotten, they at one time ran against each other.

On key issues, John McCain has spoken out against his party, while maintaining a record of logical decisions. Many of these decisions actually reflect views Obama now claims as his own. In 2003, McCain voted against the GOP in sponsoring a bill devoted to curbing Greenhouse gas emissions; then by supporting a bill for stem cell research, and more recently for increasing access to healthcare for underprivileged children. All these decisions reflect John McCain’s willingness to oppose George Bush, in fighting for decisions that are better for the country, if not the party. Sadly, this fact has been obscured by the both campaigns; McCain’s in an attempt to appease hard-core conservatives, and by Obama to appeal for “change”.

This change, he says would reach across the aisle for progress, ignoring party lines (as he accuses McCain as firmly following) to decide a common American policy. The Washington Post said John McCain voted with his party 88% of the time during the current congress, Obama voted with his party 96% of the time: how is that for change.

Pep Rallies Serve Purpose

by Logan Ferrell

As the week draws to a close, and the events of Wednesday become purely memory, the school finds itself again in an unsettled post pep-rally frame of mind. This year, as almost every year before, when the cheering fades, the grumblings of a dissatisfied few begin to grow louder and more unanimous. So, what is there to say to this group, who feels that pep rallies in their current state, may be either unnecessary or detrimental to the school and student body? That response must surely be the decision of each individual. As for myself, the idealistic goal of pep rallies, to bond the school in a common and competitive spirit, remains a symbol of tradition for the school itself.

The pep rally, as it is today, remains one of the few outlets for raw emotion in our hectic, academic environment; it harnesses that emotion as support for a common interest. What may seem like just an hour of cheering and chanting, in reality is the fulfillment of the students’ role in the sports arena. Even if one doesn’t play for the team, for this one moment, he is a part of their success, cheering them to an eventual victory.

This opportunity, to provide support and acknowledge the achievements of our athletes, forms the inherent link between player and athlete. It unites the two under a common banner; not some athletes and some not, but rather all proud Green Dragons.

That said, there remains some who would argue; that the pep rally event is not a unifying event at all, but rather a widening of the rift between classes. Sadly, there will always be a select few who indeed take their grade spirit too far, and use it in inappropriate ways; but the tradition cannot be spoiled by a destructive handful. Indeed, the competition between classes is always aimed at producing more positive spirit that hurt feelings.

While the freshmen and sophomores may squabble over the assigned colors of their shirt, at the end of the day, they are cheering for the same team, regardless of who cheers louder.

These healthy rivalries, when exposed, act not only as an outlet for spirit but also as an equalizing factor. Where else in day-to-day school life, does a freshmen have the power to challenge the superiority of a senior? So, to answer those already disgruntled, the class competition of pep rallies, is simply another way to unify the student body in a common spirit and goal.

In the days after a rally, the spirit begins to wear off somewhat, it is true. Some may return to a disinterested ignorance of sports, and many will return to bickering for personal interests.

However, we must not forget, that for one hour, on one day; those personal qualms were shed for the spirit, which unifies us as students. That is what a pep rally is truly about.

Pep Rallies Are Pointless

By Mitch Caudill

I don’t expect to be very popular for this opinion, but I’ll write it in hopes that somewhere out there in the school there are fellow non-supporters like me. Mainly, I find the idea of pep-rallies to be absurd. Acting crazy, shouting and screaming over something as uncontrollable and as unimportant as grade level strikes me as particularly illogical.

In fact, I did homework during parts of it. Furthermore, many of problems the administration cited with the pep rally come from the very fact we are divided into classes.

When you are asked to call up energy and support for something which has no controllable basis, to claim something is good, one instead must point out that something else is bad. I hardly doubt the administration would allow distinctions on controllable and truly important things. “Let’s go A students!”

Furthermore, if students could gather up even half the energy they put into preparing and acting at the pep rally, there is no doubt in my mind we could double our GPA and club activities.

I realize and agree that it’s nice to get a break from class every once in awhile, but why can’t we instead find spirit in things which do not divide us, and are productive. If not, I suggest at the next pep rally, we organize ourselves by height.

Fall Festival ’08, A Tribute to Mrs. Charity

From 3:30 until 8 o’clock tonight, hundreds will gather on the MLWGS front lawn for the annual Governor’s School fall celebration. More than 50 clubs will sell food, tee-shirts, and dessert. For some, however, this year’s festival will bring memories of a beloved MLWGS faculty member who passed away this summer.

Ms. Joyce Charity, MLWGS Regional School Board Clerk and Administrative Assistant, passed away in July. Ms. Charity’s hard-working attitude and steadfast dedication to MLWGS during her seven years of service will be forever fondly remembered. For everyone who was close to Ms. Charity, these first four weeks of school have been quite difficult. Ms. Charity’s beaming smile, her helpful spirit, and reassuring voice no longer greet visitors to the front office.

At Fall Festival today, the Richmond Boy’s Choir will perform several songs in honor of Ms. Charity and Mr. Tharp will read a tribute on the stage at 6 pm. Additionally, MLWGS community members can stop by the Key Club booth. At this table, Key Club members will be accepting donations for the Richmond Boy’s Choir, an organization that Ms. Charity loved dearly.

MLWGS faculty members have also made a special donation to the Carter Brightwell Memorial Fund, an organization that tries to prevent child abuse. This donation is especially fitting, since Ms. Charity was a godmother to Carter Brightwell, a Richmond toddler who died last year after repeated incidents of abuse.

So today, as you enjoy the food, friendship, and fun, please remember to keep Ms. Charity and her family in her prayers.

Fall Festival Favorites

Aya Kellam ('11): "I like being able to see the whole school come out and have fun."

Rachel Dobbs ('10): "I like the dunking bootha lot; but it would've been better if Senor Jenkins did it."

Hillary Hurd ('09): “I like being able to hang with people from other grades; it’s the only time I’m at school and not stressed.”

Ms. Sherri Arnold: “The food; anybody who knows me knows I am going to talk about food, everything else is enhanced by the food.”

A Personal Freedom

by Logan Ferrell (’ 11)

As the school moves away from yet another Constitution Day commemoration, complete with lessons and discussions, we are faced with an issue that continually reemerges with new vigor and riled emotions.

It is certainly an issue that touches on some of the most sensitive of beliefs, and opens the door for many more inflammatory arguments. However, it appears to me, that the American tradition of secular government can be preserved without intruding on the religious beliefs of any one group.

Any school, but even more so our own, should be a place of openness, an environment in which knowledge and curiosity may be pursued (naturally to an extent) without hindrance. Therefore, I see the institution of school sponsored prayer (banned by the Supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale) and the ban of any religious expression as equally destructive.

How can one determine the lesser of the two evils, when neither option seems to encroach less on the liberty of the student body than the other?

Instead, I believe religion should remain exactly as it was enumerated in the nation’s founding document, a freedom. Students should always be free to pray (of their own accord), expand their knowledge through religious debate, or even engage in consensual theological group discussion.

The power of faith over individuals and even societies has been shown consistently throughout history; and if a person has powerful feelings of faith they simply do not require a determined time or area. No matter the deity, if one believes strongly enough, faith may be shown anywhere and does not need specific regulation.

The degree of religious freedom allowed in this nation is comparable to few others, and must be remembered as such. To squabble over the preservation or banning of religion in schools, is to blatantly ignore what religion in this country means, freedom and a personal choice.

With Matter in Mind

by Mitch Caudill (’10)

While new to this paper, I believe that it can and should become a leading forum of intellectual discussion and dissent and accordingly I will write to that end. My intent is not to write thesis and treaties, so much as sketch ideas and arguments that can be discussed and debated throughout the school.

Many of you, I am sure, spent Constitution Day (or a legally certified proxy) discussing religion as it relates to school. On of the themes during the discussion, as I found in both my class and from talking to others, was that of offense as a threshold for action or injunction.

That is, that something is okay to do (religiously or otherwise) as long as it does not upset another person.

However, the question then becomes: what if the truth is offensive? The simple matter is that there are several academic truths that offend certain groups or believers.

Chinese nationalists are outraged at the idea that their beloved republic is suppressing Tibet, and blue-blooded patriots shrink at the idea that America has committed atrocities during war.

By barring activities from school that are otherwise educational and beneficial, on the basis of offense and leads to the willful self-blinding of society.

Whether or not a menorah, cross, crescent, or other religious symbol and their practices offend you, there are people who sincerely believe and act on them, and understanding these symbols and religions is integral to understanding the world.

In a school system that is under-funded or under-equipped, the only exposure students may have to foreign religion is an active practitioner, and if they are offended then it is these students who need the exposure more then anyone.

Crisis in the Caucuses

By Logan Ferrell (’ 11)

On August 7th, Russian tanks crossed the border into the small Caucasian state of Georgia, signaling the beginning of a much larger deployment and global uproar.

The reason announced to the world was that Russia was stepping in to defend the small separatist region of South Ossetia. In the days before the invasion, this region had been the target of vicious crackdown by the Georgian military.

One week later, Russian troops had entered another breakaway region, Abkhazia, and moved forces to within 25 miles of the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. Now, after a month criticism by the nations of Europe and the United States, Moscow has stepped back somewhat, but continues to hold troops throughout Georgia.

Several spokesmen for the federal government, including the president himself, have expressed their outrage at what they seem to find a shocking overstep of international behavior. As much as this sentiment may be shared within the media and the White House, I simply do not see how it is that we could be surprised.

Over the past eight years, the government of the United States has been content with a quiet disinterest when it comes to the actions of Russia, no matter how brazen they may seem.

With the notable exception of our close military and political alliance with Georgia, the general American apathy is even more apparent in the Caucasus. The combustible region, a breeding ground for terrorism and violence, has bred only neglect at home.

For eight years, the Bush administration has supported the Russian “anti-terrorist” operation in Chechnya, an operation criticized by countless human rights organizations for its brutal conduct.

Now, however, the president is “deeply concerned” about the danger presented to Georgian civilians. Where was that concern during the abduction, torture, and execution of countless Chechen civilians? No strong words, no action; the United States remains content to stand by while another “ally” stifles any opposition and ignores human rights.

The August invasion seems to have also awoken the government to the bigger picture; it has responded with strong words and proposed strong action to counter the aggressive Russian regime. This is a regime, whose strategic bomber patrols, the White House dismissed as normal.

The American government did not seem deterred when their “ally” ranked 144th on an international ranking of press freedom, lower than either Afghanistan or the Congo. It would seem that it takes the brute force of Russian armor to make the powers that be awake to the unsavory alliances that they have made.

Personally, I am a strong believer in the power of diplomacy. I think that idea of a “new cold war” could be prevented by dialogue. However, those in power would do best to remember that negotiation without principle is simply talk, and that American talk can affect the lives of thousands.