Reformed Christianity and Academic Freedom

Many educational institutions in the United States have their own approaches to academics and beliefs on what should be prioritized in the classroom to educate students. However, academic freedom is a complex topic that many institutions view differently. In the panel event “Reformed Christianity and Academic Freedom,” panelists Dr. Doug Ottati and Dr. Matt Samson offered their insight on this topic. The discussion was based on how religion has played a role in education since the founding of our country. The focus was on how this relationship has continued even after the passage of time and whether religion or even politics, for that matter, should play a role in current day educational endeavors.

First and foremost, Dr. Ottati emphasized the importance of education as a manner to educate the “whole person,” explaining how educational goals historically have been based on liberal arts curricula that focused on well-rounded educational teachings rather than focusing on only a person’s major. Yet, as outlined by Dr. Ottati, this presents problems in current-day plural societies. The United States is a country with many cultures and ethnicities, hence the plural nature of its demographic highlights what different groups wish to prioritize in education. This has led to criticism of the liberal arts ideology, for many groups find this style as outdated in a rapidly progressive society. Furthermore, both Dr. Ottati and Dr. Samson explained the historical relationship between education and religion/politics that has influenced American education. Many educational institutions have historically been tied to religions; some examples include Hope College and Loyola Marymount University, which were founded as religiously associated institutions to promote education with a religious influence. In terms of academic freedom, these institutions inherently had limitations on what they could teach, as their religion emphasized certain topics and deemed others unnecessary. Likewise, politics have also influenced educational teachings since historically religion has influenced politics; and both Dr. Ottati and Dr. Samson agree this is not an optimal relationship in modern times. Both panelists mentioned education is about “learning the truth,” and this is something the liberal arts and humanities curriculum does very well; however, with religious and political influence on modern-day education, this is not an easy task to achieve with modern-day censorship and stigma towards certain topics covered at universities. This issue is seen in colleges or universities that have tried introducing transgender studies courses that have been deemed inappropriate by the government. This illustrates the current-day problem that “learning the truth” is actually a very difficult goal to achieve when external factors affect what a university can rationally teach, especially if this leads to consequences for the institutions that limit their diversity in teaching, or worse, leads to loss of governmental funding or lawsuits. Consequently, it reveals how academic reform is vital in today’s society.

Moreover, the panelists’ message on how modern academic issues are crucial issues to be reformed is very much justified. Education is about finding out the truths of our world and should not be limited by external factors because it impedes development in human knowledge. The topic of censorship in institutional teachings that are considered taboo should not be a problem we have to tackle in modern times. According to theologian Abraham Kuyper, society is separated into different spheres, there is the governmental sphere, religion sphere, education sphere, etc., that are all differentiated institutions from each other. However, it is important to note that he mentions only God can rule over these spheres, as a result, one sphere attempting to influence another sphere is by definition playing God, a totalitarian effort that Kuyper finds forbidden and emphasizes the importance of self-autonomy between spheres. As a result, the choice to separate religion, politics, and education is not new but a necessary move to promote autonomy between each sphere. Therefore, the message both panelists argued is a reasonably just perspective that makes it warranted to pursue academic reform. Nonetheless, I understand my decision to justify the panelist’s argument could be limited in the sense that I am currently attending a liberal arts institution that itself promotes the “educating the whole person” viewpoint many others would not agree with. I then have a bias towards agreeing with the panelist’s argument on how education should function, thus appreciating opposing views would contradict the manner I am currently learning at a liberal arts institution. Still, taking into account differing viewpoints on this topic could lead to fruitful findings and understandings that possibly would help improve the present educational crisis we live in.

Interview With Alexander Genis On Russian Politics & Culture

The present state of politics in Russia is extremely complex, for Russia’s involvement in war with Ukraine and collaboration with China are powerful means for conflict between Russia and the United States. Hoping to gain a deeper understanding of this relevant issue, Dr. Moskvitina invited special guest Russian-American writer Alexander Genis for an interview, allowing students enrolled in Russian 101, as well as those in 201, 400, and anyone else who wanted to attend, to learn more about current Russian conflicts. This interview on October 28 heavily focused on themes of Russian censorship, current political tensions, and internal (and external) viewpoints of Russian culture.

The first topic tackled by Genis was the idea of Russian censorship. Genis, like many Russian writers who have written against Russian politics, has been established as a “foreign agent” by the Russian government. This has led to their removal from Russia and forced them to migrate elsewhere; in Genis’ case, this has been the United States. Genis explains that he speaks out against Russia’s practices of censorship, as it brings a negative view to the country. Moreover, Genis talked about his experiences as a child in former Soviet Union schools. He emphasized how the Russian education system was shaped around making Russia seem greater than it actually was. During the interview, he claimed, “The best way to learn about a country’s history is to learn it from the viewpoint of another country.” He emphasized this point because when he moved to the United States, he learned that the majority of ideas he learned about Russia’s history were falsified in an attempt to indoctrinate the people. Genis strongly believes the Russian people are learning what Putin wants them to learn, as opposed to what they should learn.

Moreover, Genis talked about the current issues between Russia and Ukraine as inspirations for his writings. He recently wrote the book “Фашизмы” (Fascisms) in an attempt to bring to light the atrocities committed by Russia and to describe the events as acts of fascism by Putin’s Russia. The war between Russia and Ukraine fortified his beliefs in fascism within Russia. However, like many of his books criticizing Russian politics, his book was banned in Russia as it was considered an attack against the nation. This, however, has not stopped him from continuing to educate people on what he calls “Putin’s Russia.” It demonstrates how he wishes to enlighten a broader audience on what is occurring in Russia and how many Russian citizens will never see the truth behind how their country operates due to the strong nationwide censorship of not only criticisms by Genis but plenty of those by other writers who have tried to make their voices heard in order to achieve some remnants of change towards a better Russia.

Lastly, it is critical to point out how Genis describes Russian culture as a Russian himself. Living in Russia for many decades, he grew up believing Russian history and culture as purely factual, there was no reason to believe anything was off because this was life, and the only life he knew was what the government taught him. As he grew up and found an interest in writing, his research helped him uncover the hidden truth about Russia, especially when he moved to the United States to continue writing his works. It is crucial to point out, people in Russia are often fed propaganda rather than truth, and Genis made sure to talk about this disconnection from reality that many Russian citizens have about their country. Genis claims external viewpoints of Russia are commonly negative, as people on the outside do not experience the censorship Russian Citizens do. This helps create this narrative that Genis describes as “Putin’s Russia” because what Putin believes in is what Russia must follow. Genis describes this as unfortunate because it hurts Russian culture and damages Russia’s profile to foreigners.

Hence, overall, Genis’ argument is justified and well-structured. His experiences and vast research on Russia show his understanding of current Russian politics and conflicts. Furthermore, as we can see in the present day, issues still exist between Russia and Ukraine; additionally, the United States’ relationship with Russia remains strained as ever, a topic Genis included in his talk many times. It is worth mentioning, my perspective may be limited rather strongly, as the interview was fully in Russian, and as a non-native Russian speaker, I relied heavily on the translation of the interview being correct, as that is how I managed to understand his story and opinions. 

The Theory of Social Media With Matpat

Matthew Patrick, better known as Matpat, is a former content creator on YouTube who focused on the science, math, and/or narrative explanations of various genres of video games during the early 2010s to a few years after the pandemic. After retiring from content creation, he shifted his focus to helping people find their passion through online content creation and founding groups to modernize the online entertainment sphere through progressive policies that would remove limitations on content creators. His talk on February 24 in the Duke Performance Hall here on Davidson College Campus tackled many of these topics, and his effort to not only inspire change within the modern entertainment sphere but also by moving his audience of young college students who may be interested in improving this complex situation within the entertainment sphere.

Matpat explained to the audience the importance of being curious about one’s passion. He explained how success in the entertainment sphere is possible if what you decide to pursue as a content creator is something you genuinely have a passion for. He argued that the authentic nature of creating something for yourself and for others to enjoy creates this connection between the creator and the fanbase, which results in people becoming more interested in someone’s content. Moreover, Matpat educated the audience on how the internet is open to everyone, so anything someone uploads to it, such as social media, is now available to the public for their personal use. This reflects the chaotic nature of the internet and the unpredictability that comes from posting something on the internet. Social media, according to Matpat, has made personal ownership blend into this line of uncertainty, where online images, videos, or files that are uploaded by some user become a property of anyone else who has access to the internet. Hence, this raises Matpat’s greatest concern about social media, and that is how works are protected in the online entertainment sphere. According to Matpat, many of our modern policies that surround online content creation are currently created and supported by people who are very unfamiliar with how this space truly operates. In essence, the lawmakers are “out of touch” with what the internet has to offer and how to properly control online safety while allowing online content creation creativity. As a result of this, Matpat became part of the Creator Economy Congress that functions to work with lawmakers in order to synergise policies that allow certain limitations to protect individuals works such as online publications, but also to help lawmakers understand what practices are actually useful in keeping the online public safe while not affecting creators and their liberties to create online content/art open to people’s enjoyment. While the online entertainment sphere still has a lot to improve upon, Matpat has set forth a path through the Creator Economy Congress to help battle online limitations against content creations while also attempting to fuel creativity in other smaller content creators who wish to make a name on their respective platforms. Problems such as AI usage and certain taxing that make online creation uninviting to most have been brought up by Matpat and his team to make this sphere better in the future and protect authentic work over an endless cycle of content stealing and repurposing to benefit people who do not deserve it.

In general, Matpat’s argument was extremely successful as he tried to inform people on the benefits and ambiguities regarding the online entertainment sphere. His years as an online content creator himself provided him with the knowledge and understanding of how social media works, and as someone who achieved great success on platforms such as YouTube, this allowed him the opportunity to help others grow through his advice and recommendations. Furthermore, with his association with the Creator Economy Congress, this has allowed Matpat to further understand the intricate nature of how policy making behind the scenes function and how they affect people as online content creators. These factors allowed Matpat to educate his audience on what the online entertainment sphere entails and how to truly make this space more accessible, safe, and reliable for the future of online content creators.

Personally, Matpat knows a lot about the online space, which makes him one of the most reliable people to talk about social media as a whole. His platforms on YouTube are a powerhouse in terms of their viewership and audience interest, but also in terms of their influence on social media platforms as a whole. I have been a fan of Matpat for over 8 years now and believe I grew up watching his content like many other people I know. Knowing his experiences and knowledge of the topics he covers, I think he made great points towards the online entertainment sphere and believe his actions and influence on his audience here at Davidson, but across the nation can help improve how social media operates and improve the opportunities of those people who wish to enter the space and achieve success just as Matpat did all those years ago. 

“Voices From The Margins” Exploring Language On Cultural Pride And National Power

Uruguay is a predominantly Spanish-speaking country in South America. Brazil, on the other hand, is a predominantly Portuguese-speaking country in South America. Moreover, because the two countries border each other, there has been a phenomenon of language mixing, in which people in towns along the border have been observed combining both languages into a language they call “Portuñol” (Portuguese and Spanish). This topic was explored at Dr. Ana Carvalho’s lecture in the Visual Arts Center (VAC) on April 2nd titled “ Vozes Das Margens.” In this lecture, Dr. Carvalho explored how this phenomenon came about in the region, what effect it has on people’s culture and identity, and, at some point, how national power became a potential threat to the existence of “Portuñol”. The lecture also involved a documentary viewing where first-hand accounts of “Portuñol” speakers shared their experiences with the language and what it means to them to speak “Portuñol.”

First, how did “Portuñol” come about in these bordering towns? As shown in the documentary, because of the geographical locations of these small towns, they were situated within Uruguayan land where Spanish was the main language, yet due to the proximity with neighboring Brazilian towns, the people living in these bordering Uruguayan towns began to combine both Spanish and Portuguese. This language mixing occurred as the people living in these small Uruguayan towns interacted more with the Brazilian towns due to their closer proximity than other bigger Uruguayan towns that spoke only Spanish. Since Spanish is the official language in Uruguay, the people began implementing Portuguese words into their daily Spanish vocabulary, which eventually was able to integrate enough words from both languages to create its own unique language.

However, how did “Portuñol” as a language affect the peoples’ culture and identity? This can be explored by how the speakers of the language described their experiences with being both Spanish and “Portuñol” speakers. Many of the “Portuñol” speakers described the language as a “home language” only; this means many of the “Portuñol” speakers only spoke the language with people they were close to. The reason for this is due to the fear of being rejected by people who did not know the language, or in some cases, due to mocking from others who considered the language as simply “broken Spanish,” and not a real language. This caused many of the speakers to only speak the language within their own families, but also their close community that knew the language. It created a sense of togetherness for the speakers and gave them a way to communicate with only themselves. Whenever “Portuñol” speakers went out to other cities away from the borders for jobs or for schooling, they only spoke Spanish as they knew outsiders would not understand them, creating this close knit community back home for them that gave “Portuñol” its role as a language that could unite the speakers and a way for them to share ideas with each other using their unique tongue.

While for the speakers, it made them feel closer together, to the government in Uruguay, it was seen as a problem. During the 1980s and 1990s, many politicians in the documentary were publicly stating “Portuñol” was not a language, and if anything, it was terrible for the speakers of the language, since they thought the people would have a lower fluency in Spanish overall. The politicians wanted to enact reforms in the region to educate the people in Spanish only, this was to promote one national language in the country, as “Portuñol” was seen as simply “broken Spanish” from the point of view of outsiders. Luckily, due to push back on the reforms by the “Portuñol” speakers, little occurred nor has been done to try and rid the country of this one-of-a-kind language. It has since been left alone to the speakers in these small, rural towns off the borders and has recently started to gain recognition by Uruguayan officials as its own language.

Ultimately, Dr. Carvalho’s lecture was successful at representing how a language could bring together people in a certain region to give them a unique identity and sense of belonging. It shows how fluid language is, but also how language can extend to other communities to create a new tongue. As a linguistics minor, my view is nonetheless skewed towards the creation of a new hybrid language as being seen as a positive movement since I understand how language is ever-changing with time. I think this lecture clearly reflects that principle as well, revealing to people that language can bring people together, and even though not everyone may agree with combining languages, it is something that undoubtedly illustrates human nature to bond with others through similarities.