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. 

Grad school is (surprisingly, but not unexpectedly) busier than anticipated... so my attempted relaunch ended up being another post in a line promising a schedule. Not to sound like a broken record, but I'm going to try and get in the habit. Not going to promise weekly posts, but I'll set the bar low and aim for monthly.

via the NPR article from 2009

I have been writing reviews of books on goodreads as I go along, though, and just finished Don't Be Such A Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style by Randy Olson, and it seems relevant to post it here since I covered his first documentary four years ago. Post is copied below:

This has been on my to-read list for ages, and now that it's semi-relevant to grad school goals, finally took it off my amazon wishlist. I watched Flock of Dodos during Darwin Week 2010; my review of that is here. Curiously, my opinions of his other work reflect what I got four years later in his book.

Dr. Olson argues that since we live in a world of short-attention spans, scientists need to learn to let go of some of the jargon and embrace subjective emotional/sexual/whatever appeal. Arouse the audience, pique their interest, and they'll follow you to your message. It's important for science communication, and here, nearly five years later there's a proliferation of science communication workshops, courses, etc. (I wonder if Randy ever goes to ScienceOnline in Raleigh?)

While his ideas are good, I'm not going to give it a full 4-5 stars because a good portion seemed to be writing out his disappointment in the blogger community on rejecting Sizzle (which I have yet to see). Science blogs are what drew me towards the world of SciComm, and while there are those who are considerably abrasive (PZ Myers, for example), there are many excellent writers out there (Carl Zimmer, Brian Switek, the Deep Sea News team, etc.) who talk about cool things in the science world without getting condescending (I would definitely have a beer with any of them).

Still, readers should take away from this that it's not just what you say, but how you say it that matters. One of Randy's points from Flock of Dodos is that the Intelligent Design movement is full of buzzwords and as I put it at the time, "shiny wrappers" that make it seem like a palatable product. When Bill Nye debated the legitimacy of Intelligent Design with Ken Ham last month, a sizable number in the science community felt it would be validating a worthless idea by even showing up. However, it was watched by millions, and brought Bill's joy in the scientific method to households that would otherwise never be exposed to critical thinking. Sure, Bill's an engineer and didn't have all the technical details right, but he's insanely relatable and easily communicates these big ideas. The reboot of Cosmos by Neil deGrasse Tyson also shares this enthusiasm over science without talking down to the audience. Get rid of the Ivory Tower, and share what you love!

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"