So, this week, I guess Harvard was able to do what no one else can, because, well, it's Harvard. When the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military wasn't changed, Harvard decided they had enough, and will no longer allow ROTC and it's members access to their campus. Don't get me wrong, they have every right to run their institution however they want, but it's their arrogant way of doing things that I struggle with. Are they the only ones who can take a stand without being called intolerant?
Their way of arguing is no different than the way any of us try to make a point. They make decisions based on a core set of values that in turn drive the decisions they make as an institution. We all live from a core set of values that shape who we are and the decisions we make. Whether we're pro-choice or pro-life, an advocate of traditional family values or a more liberal definition of what it means to be a family, a Quran-burning preacher from Florida, or a flag burning Muslim from Iran; we are all shaped by a core set of beliefs that shape how we live and react to our world.
So, this week, Harvard acted on theirs. They have their critics, sure, but there are many that aren't even aware that this decision was made because the press didn't tell us, unlike the story about a preacher from a small church in Florida who's one act created an international stir. For the record, I don't agree with what he was threatening to do, or attempting to say, but I think he has the right to express his opinion, just like Harvard.
I find myself growing weary of this conversation, where one side is justified in their argument. I say again that there has to be a more hopeful voice in this and it often comes from those who, more times than not, remain silent so they won't be labeled one thing or the other. Extreme sections of our tribe already make it difficult for us to be intolerant for the things we should not tolerate. More times than not we choose silence and grace over picketing and arguments; but you won't read about that in the press either.
Their way of arguing is no different than the way any of us try to make a point. They make decisions based on a core set of values that in turn drive the decisions they make as an institution. We all live from a core set of values that shape who we are and the decisions we make. Whether we're pro-choice or pro-life, an advocate of traditional family values or a more liberal definition of what it means to be a family, a Quran-burning preacher from Florida, or a flag burning Muslim from Iran; we are all shaped by a core set of beliefs that shape how we live and react to our world.
So, this week, Harvard acted on theirs. They have their critics, sure, but there are many that aren't even aware that this decision was made because the press didn't tell us, unlike the story about a preacher from a small church in Florida who's one act created an international stir. For the record, I don't agree with what he was threatening to do, or attempting to say, but I think he has the right to express his opinion, just like Harvard.
I find myself growing weary of this conversation, where one side is justified in their argument. I say again that there has to be a more hopeful voice in this and it often comes from those who, more times than not, remain silent so they won't be labeled one thing or the other. Extreme sections of our tribe already make it difficult for us to be intolerant for the things we should not tolerate. More times than not we choose silence and grace over picketing and arguments; but you won't read about that in the press either.
No comments:
Post a Comment