Revisiting the Clemson Family: #SaveTillman's Darker Side

One day, I'll actually post about science again (hopefully this term because I'm taking a seminar on getting more involved with science communication!) Instead, it's another round of "I love you, but I'm disappointed in you" to the Clemson community.

From last time:

Some of my best memories are at Clemson (if anyone at this point is questioning devotion, I graduated from there and by virtue of Tiger Band for four years attended all home games in my time), and my favorite part is the Clemson family- the idea that all Tigers, no matter your stripe, are bonded by this school. Taking a step back it sounds hokey, but in person my experiences were overwhelmingly positive. When I read posts like the above, I honestly question the welcomeness I felt. Is the Clemson family only a veneer, that only certain members can be considered 'family'? I'd like to think not. #ClemsonStrong shouldn't be about pounding chests for the faith or starting another Crusade, but rather embracing our diversity as what MAKES Clemson a strong institution. 

Weird, that the words still mostly apply about nine months later. Again, we see a majority feel persecuted, but this time it's a different minority, and one that cannot be closer to the Clemson family... because it IS a part of the Clemson family.

If you haven't paid much attention to what's going on around TigerTown, there's been a string of negative incidents over the last few months.

• Following Darren Wilson's lack of conviction and the lack of indictment in Eric Garner's death (recap for both incidents here), protests against racial profiling and police brutality took place in cities and on campuses across the country, including Clemson. A small but passionate group of students led several protests, including  a "die-in" on Bowman Field. On the app YikYak where users anonymously post and others can up or downvote them, there was a small but vocal counter response: 
• Shortly after the uproar over anonymous insensitivity, history repeated itself and a greek organization hosted a 'Cripmas' party. When the story first broke, quite a few commenters mentioned they didn't see it as offensive, putting it on the same level as mafia or wild west themed parties. While well-intentioned, such sentiments missed the point that having a 'gangsta' themed party soon after the Michael Brown decision (in which some media outlets and peanut galleries called the teenager a 'thug) was poorly timed, not to mention the trivialization of gang brutality. 
• In response, See the Stripes organized a student protest on Library Bridge. President Clements was present and addressed student questions. He later sent out an email encouraging the Clemson family to come together and announcing several initiatives towards discussing diversity in 2015. 
• 2015 is here! Members of Clemson's faculty, staff, and student body marched from Death Valley to Sikes, airing a list of grievances of when the university "failure to fulfill and uphold Mr. Clemson's vision and its own mission, particularly to "educate undergraduate and graduate students to think deeply about and engage in the social, scientific, economic and professional challenges of our time" among other things. 
• Clemson's Faculty Senate votes to rename Tillman Hall, but tables the motion. The facutly senate can't actually change the name, but can make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees, which can then bring it up in the state legislature. 

Now we're caught up. And Tiger Nation? I love you, but man do we need empathy everywhere. 

While there are those that agree with the proposal, I've seen mostly a backlash (and maybe that's my feeds, but it feels large... like a majority maybe...). It falls into a few categories, illustrated here by various facebook, twitter, and change.org comments, mostly that the name is traditional/iconic for Clemson. Curiously, despite Tillman being a seminal figure in the creation of Clemson University, the building we now know today as Tillman was the "Old Main Building" until 1940 when Tillman's son pushed to rename it (ironically because he felt his father's legacy was being forgotten). 

I'm not going to weigh in on whether it should or should not be changed. If I had the answer, I'd probably be forwarding it to the faculty senate and board of trustees, but there's no easy solution here. Tillman's actions are reprehensible- this goes beyond the racist attitudes of the day, but outright murdering people and bragging about it. He also was instrumental in Clemson's founding. They don't cancel each other out, but there's no simple metric for measuring impact against each other. 

Instead, I'm going to focus on how some of the backlash, though well-intentioned, is antithetical to the idea of the Clemson Family. 

Mostly, the ones that say "If you don't like it, don't go here." I don't know if it's a vocal minority, but I keep seeing it. 

It also seems a little weird to me to accuse a minority of bullying the majority- "You made me uncomfortable with your uncomfortableness", essentially. 

Thjs one is pretty disappointing. I know HillWatch aligned with #ClemsonStrong last spring, but the account was entertaining enough. Outright telling students to leave? Nope, unfollowed. 

Our advice to the students wanting to rename Tillman Hall: TRANSFER!
— Hill Watch (@HillWatch) January 14, 2015

Don't like the name of Tillman Hall? Then leave our university! #SaveTillman
— Cameron Antley (@CameronA128) January 18, 2015

The whole Tillman Hall controversy sickens me... If its that big of a deal to the 80 students causing drama... LEAVE... #SaveTillman
— Chris Wall (@cwall027) January 17, 2015

Unlike the #ClemsonStrong reaction, it's not an outsider group asking for change. It's students, staff, and faculty AT Clemson! To me, this is an incredibly rude thing to say, especially if these students, faculty, alumni, etc. have been involved with Clemson just as long as (if not more than) some of the people telling them to go. This is what saddens me even more. 

So y'all can protest to #SaveTillman, but we can't protest that #BlackLivesMatter? FOH with that foolery.
— khaila ♡ (@_BabyKhai) January 18, 2015

There's also seems to be this idea that the students who feel uncomfortable are just making trouble out of nothing: 

#clemsonfamily #savetillman? RT @aydeethegreat "And email" pic.twitter.com/FNUx9tNZwa
— Amber Lange (@amber9600) January 16, 2015

And then there's just plain racism:

BUT WAIT there's more! #ClemsonFamily #BanYikYak #SaveTillman #SaveTillmanSaveRacism pic.twitter.com/nltMj230Uu
— Britt Jerome (@britt_jerome) January 16, 2015

Not explicitly racism, but honestly if Mr. Tillman were alive today I don't think most of the students protesting would have the opportunity to attend this school.

There was also a weird thing on twitter Friday (1/16/2015) where a YikYak accused black students of only getting in because of their race and users both refuting that and sharing it. Not even going to touch that, just giving it a huge side-eye (because this is something I can DEFINITELY relate to). 

To be completely honest, I wasn't aware of the full extent of "Pitchfork" Benjamin Tillman's actions until I read many of the articles that were posted this week. Perhaps this is evidence that we've already swept history under the rug? Renaming might not be the answer, but the conversation we're having about weighing his contributions to the university versus his reprehensible actions (calmly murdering a state legislator in the name of Anglo-Saxon purity) needs to happen. 

As I said earlier, I firmly believe in the idea of the Clemson family. When I was talking to a fellow graduate (who is also a person of color), she responded that yes, it's a family... but if something happens we break into smaller groups and shit hits the fan. I'd like to think my alma mater is better than this. I don't want to give up on my peers, especially if they should know better because they went to Clemson. Black students only make up 6% of Clemson's student body versus 28% of South Carolina's population (both are higher than my hometown's 0.4%). Voices shouldn't be ignored just because it's not as popular an opinion- these are our brothers and sisters in orange, so if you truly see orange instead of race, LISTEN. 

I'll close with some words from President Clements:

"We often speak of the Clemson Family, but we need to live it, not just say it." - Jim Clements @ClemsonPrez #SaveTillman ?
— Chenjerai Kumanyika (@catchatweetdown) January 17, 2015

"Family means different things to different people –but central to the concept is a sense that we are all connected"-Clements #SaveTillman ?
— Chenjerai Kumanyika (@catchatweetdown) January 17, 2015

1/19/15- minor edits- accidentally said "Clemson" instead of "Tillman" in recap, also duplicate of a screenshot 

#ClemsonStrong, you're doing it wrong*

*Post title borrowed from Jessika, a friend from Tiger Band
I thought about posting on a different blog, but this one started as a project at Clemson for a course on evolution & creationism, so it's fitting.

A week ago, the Freedom From Religion Foundation released an open letter to Dabo Swinney and the Clemson football program highlighting what they feel is an inappropriate entanglement with religion (in particular, evangelical Christianity) in athletics. FFRF isn't pursuing litigation, but rather is highlighting the questionable practices of maintaining a team chaplain, scheduling devotionals, and taking the team & coaches to church via privately funded buses. These and other intertwined proselytizing were described in a Chronicle of Higher Education article last fall.

Shortly after this, a firestorm of activity from fans blazed across social media. I noticed this on twitter- in particular the @HillWatch and @ClemsonTom accounts which are incredibly popular, spamming @FFRF with sentiments essentially saying to stay out of our business, we're believers, etc. etc. They in turn egged on fans, especially with the hashtag #ClemsonStrong. A facebook page called "I Support Dabo's Stand for Jesus" popped on facebook and as of this post, has nearly 30,000 members. While I didn't watch facebook too much, I did grab screenshots from twitter, not censoring any names because these are public accounts- I found them with a simple search, and by posting on a public medium they declare their opinions.

In some cases, there seemed to be a misunderstanding (the assumption that Clemson was getting sued). 

Or, a complete misunderstanding of what a public university is- that Clemson is a state school, publicly funded, and if a student desired a specifically religious education, they have numerous options less than 100 miles away. 

Personally, I'm more offended by my fellow Tigers than by Dabo's actions. He released a statement (essentially a nonstatement since he didn't address any of the specific concerns and just performed testimony as my Mormon neighbors back home would say) following Clemson University's own statement where they see no wrongdoing but will investigate claims. In repsonse to part of Dabo's statement where he says the program emphasizes good character & citizenship, FFRF replies that being a good citizen also involves following the Constitution. I think the original letter was a good way to start a dialog, but many have taken it to mean taking a knee jerk reaction and becoming God Warriors.

Dabo's a good ole' boy and isn't likely to change his personal beliefs, and in the South the two most important affiliations are who you root for on Saturday and where you worship on Sunday. However, as many of the posts above demonstrate there is a profound lack of awareness that the overwhelming presence of a majority doesn't nullify the minority. In fact, it's almost disturbing, especially since Clemson added a "Culturious" component to their freshmen orientation. I was the first class to experience it so I'm not sure if it's retained, but it was definitely something they took pride in, even garnering an award for promoting diversity & inclusion in its third year. Why does the FFRF exist, some people ask? Because sometimes communities such as ours need a reminder that the majority does not speak for all. Dr. Roger B. Rollin, emeritus professor of literature at Clemson, recently wrote a Letter to the Editor in the school newspaper, raising alarms that proselytizing may even be going on from professors to students, taking advantage of a powerful position. 

Some of my best memories are at Clemson (if anyone at this point is questioning devotion, I graduated from there and by virtue of Tiger Band for four years attended all home games in my time), and my favorite part is the Clemson family- the idea that all Tigers, no matter your stripe, are bonded by this school. Taking a step back it sounds hokey, but in person my experiences were overwhelmingly positive. When I read posts like the above, I honestly question the welcomeness I felt. Is the Clemson family only a veneer, that only certain members can be considered 'family'? I'd like to think not. #ClemsonStrong shouldn't be about pounding chests for the faith or starting another Crusade, but rather embracing our diversity as what MAKES Clemson a strong institution. 

Another attempt at a wedge?

The New York Times today had this article about antievolutionists now adding global warming and climate change to their "Teach the Controversy" agenda. Denialists bother me, and it's disturbing to think that two kinds merging into some kind of horrific hybrid could descend upon schools with "Academic Freedom Bill" nonsense. I almost want to ask if alchemy and Stork theory can be included, but all facetiousness aside, this is frustrating. It also reminds me of the mock stickers Dr. Waldvogel showed us last year warning that books may contain information about gravitational theory, germ theory, etc.

Climate change may be the "new kid on the block" scientifically speaking, but the current consensus is that it is anthropogenic. Volcanos can account for only so much... but I'm not going to climb on that particular soapbox until I can do more research for a clearer, better-cited post.

Among the comments was this gem (oh Highlights feature, how awesome art thou) from a clergyman concerned with the rise of anti-intellectualism among the evangelical movement, who, like Randy Olson points out that science is terrible at public relations, that the man on his pulpit can reach into the hearts of people to guide them to Christ's light and that scientists need such a person to show people that proper science is by extension an indication of a creative God.

In my podcast last year, I highlighted this issue- that while I personally adore PZ Myers and his cephalopod love, having such a popular figure also tear down theism on a regular basis isn't likely to help "bring people into the fold" of scientific literacy. Dr. Ken Miller is an excellent example of someone who practices a particular belief and still understands and appreciates how science works.

I'd rather not tell you what to believe, to be all condescending and make decisions based on my particular world view. Instead, I opt for spreading critical thinking and rational thought in hopes of raising scientific literacy. Whether you see it as evidence of the existence of a higher power or not, I don't care so long as you can intelligently reason. As Queen Elizabeth I said, "I have no desire to make windows into mens souls"

Commentary on "Running into the Brick Wall of Creationism" essay, extra credt #3

Danielle Tom
Biol 210: Evolution and Creationism
Dr. Jerry Waldvogel
4/21/09
EC #3
Commentary on “The brick wall of Creationism”
Reverend Penny Greer’s opinion that fundamentalism (religious movement) and scientific viewpoints are separate perspectives on the world agrees with lectures earlier in the semester on religion and science as different ways of knowing. Having a historical background will allow for better communication between opposing sides as it allows for greater understanding. It is interesting to see the positive attitudes towards science early in the movement, still prevalent today that an intelligent designer manufactured the rules that govern the natural world. It puzzles me that a hypothesis would be regarded as pure speculation, though, even with evidence. I guess the real reason would be at a glance the theory of evolution puts ‘chance’ in place of an omniscient deity even though a closer look at Darwin’s words would indicate that perhaps such a move towards complexity would be a sign of someone smart enough to create it.
I think her view that the dominant fundamentalist tenant is literalism may be too… stereotypical? Not the right word I’m looking for. Painting the whole one color, I guess, as we DID see earlier in the semester the chart of levels of acceptance of evolution. Fundamentalism is not solely confined to the Flat Earth Society fringe; not all are so vehemently opposed to the general theory (instead halfstepping it with “I believe in micro, not macro.”) Creationism isn’t a solidly brick wall; it’s segments here and there, much like how the Great Wall of China isn’t one long wall but various segments.
Although understanding the historical context of the division will improve communication, true reconciliation is likely impossible as both sides include staunch individuals unwilling to concede or listen to the other’s point of view (as evidenced by the fringes of Dawkins and Dembski). The Rev. has a sound rationale, which will work best in discussions between those closer to the center of the aforementioned chart. In most things, the middle mass tends to be the majority, so for everyday use basic understanding of the history behind fundamentalism and their points of view will be useful. Trying to persuade the fringes will likely be a fruitless task, much like mending the fraying ends of a blanket.

Raw notes from the Tuesday speakers

4/14/09 Profs.
Dr. Hap Wheeler, Biological Sciences, Episcopalian.
-1982 convention- supports evolution. Catechism rejects literal creation, including ID.
-Most fall into theistic evolution.
-does not engage in religion-science debates, counterproductive.
-Main focus should be on preserving that creation, controlling our mastery.
Dr. Bob Kosinski, Catholic
-Agrees w/ Dr. Wheeler
-Catholic church;s position pretty clear.
Science relys on natural law. Why pick on evolution when there’s other bones of contention? Like gravity- law, or God pushing on it?
-One place where Catholics (and other religion) are kinda squicky- science does not believe in teleological explanations- natural system is trying to do something, following a plan or attaining a particular goal. “Earth turns to share the joys of sunlight with all her children!”
-Science seeks the simpler explanation; religion looks for teleological explanations, “God’s plan”, a purpose, etc.
Dr. John Morse- Baptist
-No such thing as a Baptist perspective or doctrine (well, Gogle seemed to pick up on that), so this is a personal perspective.
-Not much of a relationship between faith & science.
Broadly speaking, faith motivates social interactions… argh.
-TRUTH- uses all objective experiences AND subjective experiences.
-Faith starts with assumptions. Science believes world is ordered by principles, senses are reliable. Faith- assumptions of God’s existence, etc.
-our existence. Science has corroborating dating methods, hierarchy of life. In faith, consistent character of God
-100+ dating methods… radiometric, ice cores, coral reef layering, red shift, etc. etc.
-All these methods say the same story- age of life, the universe, and everything. Chance of all happening randomly is remote.
-Family trees (his specialty, hierarchy of life). Not one species occurs out of the tree.
-Choice- creation 6000 years ago (assumption that God made things seem older and related), or other? Is God’s character consistent
Dr. Peter Cohen, professor of philosophy, Jewish
-Cannot speak for all of Judaism, has a wide spectrum. God is ineffable- don’t know his character, so hard to understand.
-not necessarily a worldview of faith more of practice.
-last Wednesday, sun was at the same position it was during creation (every 28 years)
-Science is a part of the grand scheme, but we don’t know what it is.
Megha Kumar- Hindu
-again, too broad so personal view
-300 G=gods, but belief in all necessarily
-reincarnation mirrors natural view
-open to the idea that man and monkeys are cousins
-works with embryos, but taken aback by other grads. God in how you lead your life.
Basma Damiri- Muslim
- believes in both Christianity and Judaism at the same time
- The Bible, The Quaran And Science by Dr. Mauice Bucaille
- In Islam, Allah created everything, life came from water. Humans come from clay (Qur’an 21:30) Everything developed order not random, pushed by a power (Qur’an 41:11, 79:30, 39:5, 51:47)
- Origin of man… nutfah, looks like a leech/clot of blood. Then, a chewed piece of meat. Kept in three darknesses- belly, darkness, uterus. 7th century holds up well with 20th century science.
- Both work well, just need to believe, in an organized thing
Takashi Maie- Buddhist/Shinto
-Shin = god (OHHO SHINIGAMI I GOT IT)
-both very supernatural. In Shinto, preexisting gods create other gods.
-in Buddhism, depending on what karma you have here, you get placed in different levels of afterlife. BUT, reborn in another life. You become god when you escape the cycle. In principle, similar to Hinduism
-neither makes sense to him in terms of creation….just pursues science.
Dr. John Hains, Unitarian/universalists
- unterarian universalists are not Christians, but share things in spirit. In terms of phylogeny, after Judaism and before Catholicism in terms of alcoholic consumption… (joke)
- not bound by doctrine or dogma, free thinkers (includes Joseph Priestley, Louisa M. Alcott, John C. Calhoun, Bela Bartok, Dorothea Dix, Linus Pauling, Clara Barton… etc.)
- no problem with evolution, free thinking.
- In personal opinion, what separates them is to consider the possibility that they’re wrong about it, will reconsider if proper evidence is brought.
- Darwin was in this… called it a featherbed for fallen Christians.
Question time!
-how do universalists reconcile the miracle things, such as ressurection or virgin birth? Dr. Morse- “I have no clue. 1st Corinthians 13… if I’m still interested in these kinds of question when I get to heaven, I’ll ask”
John Hans- “youtube Father Reginald Foster, watch what he says about some of the stories from the Bible… miracles aren’t much different from magic”
Dr. Cohen- “…when I’m teaching, I look at the miracles as people’s reaction to events as miraculous. How people interpret is more important than how it actually occurred.. virgin birth wasn’t immediately accepted, political decision on a lot of levels in the early centuries… sociological reaction- what do people do with it, and where does it take them” Intro to world religions
Dr. Waldvogel to Basma Damiri- is evolution as a topic sidestepped or being addressed in a particular way in the education system? “The holy book explains many things… there IS an effect, things don’t happen randomly. It’s about what knowledge you know to explain, though- we can explain things in the Qur’an much better than past centuries. Now we can see things referenced before, like that Nutfah, etc. Science comes to explain things we don’t have any knowledge about”
DeWitt- answering Tomas’ question (ooh, former Christian? MAN I wish that thread still existed....)- it’s a supernatural mystery, the whole POINT is that it’s unexplainable. That’s how religion explains that… see what I’m saying?
Basra supplement- 7th century, when people asked Muhammed for a miracle, splitting the moon in half. He fretted, but then pointed, it split, then came back. Read in a magazine to prove religions and found someone who mentioned this miracle, ‘oh it’s crazy’…. But then watched tv and saw on the moon, the moon HAD split but changed back, split at some time, scienctifically. There is cause for everything,”
Meghra- “If I tried to look at all the Hindu miracles and tried to explain them, I’d probably kill myself. Kind of overboard to keep track all…”
Chris question- science isn’t necessarily responsible for answering religious questions, isn’t obligated to answer for virgin births and moon splitting, like taking a history class and expecting to learn science. Not addressed, but can be done
Dewitt- saw a movie- if you saw a miracle, how can you explain a miracle?