College Reflections

Originally Entitled: Purpose for the Journey
Submitted by Jason Makowsky
Indiana Wesleyan University

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for CSA552 Dr. Carol Lundberg 09/10/04

Purpose for the Journey
There was a sense of excitement as our class shared a visual representation of this assignment during our course time this summer. I had recorded the details of this assignment before many times, but not like now, knowing I would need to analyze it in a final paper citing theorists who explain the phases I passed through as my college years unfolded. This assignment will add a special element of purpose for writing my facts down. The purpose I refer to here not only speaks to the theorists who will illuminate these stages, but also to my quest for purpose during this phase of my life.

Characterizing myself before college would simply be to say I was sheltered, maybe even a wallflower of sorts. I was raised in a sheltered home, with a religious upbringing despite divorced parents. I sought acceptance from others, especially male role models whom I loyally followed. Thankfully, I found the company of positive influences. Therefore, I entered college like most freshman, seeking friends who accepted me. I even remember a leadership assessment I took right before entering college, its discovery: I was a natural born follower. My years before and during my first year of college follow what Perry would call a dualistic stage of development. My desire to major in mathematics, and later religion were fueled by a right and wrong view of the world. I was taught that my Christian heritage was the right way and others were wrong, I came to appreciate mathematics for the same reason, it offered concrete solutions that were either right or wrong. I was a student who very much followed what I was told to do. The choice to choose a religious college was based on this phase or position of dualism as well.

I chose to go to the most expensive religious college I could get into, unlike my friends who went to State schools. This ended up being my denominational college, and from a lower-middle class family I was provided with much financial aid. My time in college was very influential and can be explained best by four friends I met while attending.

My decision to pursue Mathematics as a major introduced me to a good friend named Jo. She was also very active in Inter Varsity as well as the music groups on campus. We had almost every class together and she introduced me to all the active Christians. I also met Lee, who was my RA in college. He got along with everyone and earned the respect of a very diverse dormitory wing of students that he supervised. He told me my first week that he thought I could be an RA next year because I seemed to get along well with everyone. His encouragement prompted me to apply that spring to replace him when he left. He modeled how to empower someone by bringing out their strengths. My roommate Rob probably spoke into my life more than anyone. It was more than the fact we shared everything from clothes to cologne; he had magnetism that everyone was drawn to, especially the ladies. He was the most eligible bachelor on campus and that made me popular. He could talk to anyone and make the conversation deep. I watched Rob and emulated his skills in connecting with people. I also randomly attended a church in the area and met a college pastor named Dave. He immediately took an interest in my spiritual journey and became a mentor to me. I choose these four people because they also personify the four areas of vocation I considered throughout my college years, music, student affairs, counseling and ministry. My journey was somewhat reflected in my friendships with them. However, more than vocation, they each were with me during shaping moments in my college career.

My freshman year I rushed and pledged a fraternity on campus with seven other guys in my dormitory wing, which included my roommate Rob. The fraternity was a terrific experience that single-handedly brought me out of my shell and forced me to do things that were out of my comfort zone. Schlossberg characterizes this as a transition (Evans et al, 1998), in that it changed my relationships and daily life significantly. I chose to limit my peer group to those in the fraternity, began attending its events and assumed my social status in light of my belonging to its membership. It also introduced me to temptations I had never experienced before and left me unsupported in making positive choices. The fraternity is also where I began to open my mind to other points of view and behaviors. This is characteristic of Perry’s multiplicity position (Evans et al, 1998). I look back now upon my time in the fraternity with mixed feelings, however, I see how it shaped my development.

My college pastor Dave met with me several times before I pledged the fraternity and cautioned me to the perils of joining such an organization. I dismissed his fears as one-sided, but agreed to meet with him regularly whether I joined or not. This is again a reflection of my transition from following what a positive male role model would say (Perry’s dualism) to disagreeing while maintaining my own diverse view (Perry’s multiplicity). While Dave was influential, he moved my sophomore year, but he planted a seed that eventually challenged me to transfer after my second year.

My sophomore year I became an RA in my dormitory. My previous RA, Lee, had prepared me for the job and I found an eclectic group of friends on this coed staff. I encountered such a variety of student interactions that year I decided I would be an RA every year I was able, I loved it. I realized that I had stumbled upon an area of fit for me and was grateful to Lee for his prompting. This variety was helpful for me as I phased into Perry’s multiplicity of thinking. The diverse relationships I encountered and desire to be a leader among my peers transitioned me, not just into thinking more openly, but also believing differently. This is similar to someone who is phasing past a stage five in Perry’s model. My cognitive development (thinking) was influencing my ethical development (believing).

My friend Jo and the rest of our Chapel Choir toured Europe the summer after my sophomore year. The experience opened my eyes and was deeply moving. I had so much time to think and process during that trip that I realized I did not know who I was. I went to college to become someone and after two years had become someone other than myself. It was very disturbing as I looked back upon half of my college career and had compromised beliefs and behaviors I had cherished growing up. Upon my return, I decided to quietly transfer over the summer and begin anew at another school. I also sensed a peace in my prayer time about changing while this dissonance ruled in my mind; though I honestly wondered if I was running. This running sent me back to a more dualistic thinking phase which Perry’s model allows for as one retreats in their cognitive development (Evans et al, 1998), or at least moves into a resting position, or temporize (Perry, 1968) as they try to understand experiences. Maybe transferring was a chance for me to rest in my development and chew on these new experiences.

I remember an assignment I had in an education class where we each had to craft a mask from materials the professor had provided and then explain how the mask represented us. My mask was colorful and flamboyant, but I now doubted if the mask was ever the real me.
After transferring, I fine-tuned my vocation and focused on some other areas of my life, such as a different major and a less narrow peer group. This transition of independence was important because I made a decision that would affect my friendships, time commitment and financial resources. I broadened my support network and was now confident, social and easily fit in with all groups on campus. My desire for acceptance disappeared and I became focused on pleasing God with my life. This led to a series of shaping moments that caused me to “grow up” faster than I had planned.

The year I transferred, my father had a massive heart attack at the age of fifty two. He was young, so I thought, "would I need to worry about my health now?" I wrestled with my fleeting youth and talked to my father often. Our relationship grew and I remember him saying he thought me a spiritual mentor to him. I had become to him what I always desired him to be with me. This was a significant role transition for me in two ways: I had to consider the adult issues of mortality as well as the reversal of seeing my parents as leaders. I was able to move through this transition with success as I took responsibility for my health and also the role I would play in my father’s life from henceforth. I viewed both of these lessons as assets in my new ability to manage my life on my own.

Later that year, I got involved with some of the leaders of a local large church college group. After serving with this team and seeing God bless our ministry, several of us considered dropping out of college and planting a church out east. I was dating my wife at this time and we both spoke to our parents about the real possibility of this option. We decided to finish our degrees as several good friends left and pursued this dream. This again illustrates the ownership I had taken with my life direction as I considered what life would look like without college as a backdrop.

Looking back, college changed me drastically. As I examined the theories of Schlossberg and Perry I have come to understand my development in a new scope. My earliest college days were characterized by dualism of thought, but became open to a multiplicity of ideas as new people and schemas presented themselves. My thinking was forced to change and in turn my beliefs were challenged to change as well. Perry (1981) stated, “It is in one’s way of affirming Commitments that one finds at last the elusive sense of ‘identity’ one has searched for elsewhere” (p. 97). My choices have brought me on a journey of cognitive growth throughout college that appears to be linear, although, Perry’s model does not specify one must move through these phases in any order. Similarly, Schlossberg’s Transitions model has proved to be a fine framing tool to examine the “shaping moments” referred to earlier. I have come to see each of these moments more deeply for what was occurring within me and around me while they transpired. My decisions to pledge a fraternity, transfer to another school and possibly plant a church were integral to my current identity. They have caused me to grow. Schlossberg asserts that, “Transitions may lead to growth, but decline is also a possible outcome, and many transitions may be viewed with ambivalence by the individuals experiencing them” (Evans et al., p. 112). I admit that while I was moving-into and through a transition I was sometimes upset by them, but by the time I was moving-out of a transition I understood its usefulness to my development. I believe Schlossberg would consider this appraisal part of how I came to understand or cope with my transitions.

In retrospect, this assignment was very enlightening and caused me to seek even more theorists from the text as I sought to put meaning to my college years.

References

Evans, N., Forney, D. & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student Development in College: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 107-145). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, W.G., Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A.W. Chickering & Associates, The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society (pp. 76-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, W.G., Jr. (1968). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.

Women Pastors, Who Needs 'Em?

Wesleyans need to quitsending daughters to the youth conventions

One of the great strengths of my denomination is its youth conventions. Thousands of youth gather for motivation, to make deeper commitments and to hear a challenge to respond to God’s call to the ordained ministry. The effect of these conventions on my denomination is immeasurable—in training church leaders, and calling out the next generation of church planters, pastors, and denominational leaders.But we have a big problem. Traditionally one service of these conventions is dedicated to “the call” to full time ordained ministry. Usually young people are asked to listen to God’s voice to discern if they believe God is calling them to His full time ministry. They are asked to come forward and take a stand, or to take some other action testifying to their call to the ministry.Well, that’s not the real problem. Here’s the real problem: Since my denomination approves the ordination of women, young women go forward in these meetings too. Thus we wind up with a number of women who have heard God’s call to the ministry, gone forward to confirm it, testify to their call to their friends and parents, then go off to our colleges and universities to train for the ministry. I teach these women in my classes—and they are gifted, bright, talented, and have a great heart for ministry and a clear understanding of their call. Perhaps one of them is your daughter or grand-daughter. You know how gifted she is, and you know that she feels clearly called to the ministry.So, what’s the problem?

Here’s the problem: when your daughter graduates and starts seeking a staff or solo pastorate in her home denomination—the Wesleyan Church—she will have a much harder time finding a place to fulfill her calling than my male students will have. In fact, my mediocre male students can get a job faster than the finest of my women students. No, that’s not right—my bottom-of-the-barrel male students can even get jobs faster than the very best women. Most pastors simply prefer male ministers—so do many church boards. Though my own denomination allows women to be ordained, and its leaders are significantly pro-women, people can still survive in my denomination yet passive block women from ever fulfilling their calling. It’s like a pocket veto—they simply do not respond and hope “the problem” will go away. Indeed a popular para-church organization related to my denomination still has no women itinerant speaker—at least one who speaks to whole churches and not merely “women’s retreats” or “with her husband.”

People who quietly resist women in ministry survive—even thrive—in my denomination and are treated as if their view is merely a matter of personal opinion not a denominational value. Women in ministry say there are even District Superintendents who have actively spoken against women in spiritual authority and they get away with it. We have a high-level official in one of our denomination’s colleges who has made statements apposing women in ministry in educational forums he survives as if it is his right to a matter of personal interpretation of the Bible. And we apparently (if you believe the women working for them) have at least a few larger church pastors who think women can serve on staff, or with children or youth, but not as the lead spiritual authority in a church. Ever. When I wrote the first draft of this article I addressed it to my own denomination. Since then I have received an outpouring of reports describing an almost identical situation among the Nazarene and Free Methodist churches too—apparently the entire holiness movement—a movement that exploded under women pastors—has the same problem. Why? Is the holiness movement Baptist or Wesleyan?Thus, while I am in a holiness denomination that “permits” women to be ordained, it means little since they hardly can get a place to serve. This is your daughter I’m talking about.

While there are hundreds of “supporters” of women in ministry in my denomination, most of them are moderate supporters—they would not go so far as to reprimand a DS woman-blocker, or reprimand a large church pastor. So, when it comes right down to it, they treat all this like it is a matter of personal opinion not a church stand. Supporters who aren’t willing to make hard decisions are not supporters at all but merely politicians.So this is why I think Wesleyan folk should quit sending their daughters to the youth conventions. If you let them go they’ll be challenged to hear God call them to the ordained ministry, and they’ll answer, then they’ll come to my school or one of the other Wesleyan schools and they’ll get a degree in ministry thinking God and the church was serious when it challenged them to “listen for the call.” Then they’ll graduate from college or seminary and start looking for a church in the denomination that encouraged them to respond—and they’ll get that email back from the DS saying, “I’m sorry, I really have nothing for you.” Or more likely no email response at all (and the fellow right next to them in class has gotten three already from the same DS). So your called daughter or granddaughter will be frustrated. She will wonder why God called her and the church encouraged her so she earned her ministry degree but now there is not a DS or church willing to let her fulfill her calling while she watches the male students one by one get the peachy jobs until even the marginal males are all placed.

So what should your daughter do? She should fulfill her calling I say. Which means find a denomination that will let her minister. In my neck of the woods right now that is the United Methodist Church. I hate to send off our “best and brightest” to another denomination but that’s better than sending them to Taco Bell. Essentially this means the daughters you’re sending to the youth conventions are likely to wind up ministers in another denomination. So quit sending them! Then you can keep them Wesleyans.

_________________________________

Of course there is another answer to this problem isn’t there? We could spot the DSs, pastors , educational leaders and para-church organizations who quietly resist women in ministry and return the favor and black-list them like they are doing to the women. I know, this sounds naughty. But that may be the only way to get these folk to live up to their own denomination’s stand. Power may be all they understand or listen to. Gentle persuasion has been practiced now for several decades—they may only hear louder pressure from the rest of us—the vast majority of us. I figure if they can quietly black-list women from their district we can black-list them from speaking at our camp meetings and ministers conferences. Maybe they’ll straighten up and get with the program. What comes around goes around.

So, if you actively care about your daughter’s or granddaughter’s ministry maybe you should start asking questions about college spiritual emphasis week speakers, college professors and camp and conference speakers. Yes, and denominational religion divisions like mine (who has gone for the last three years straight with an all-male faculty). Perhaps you’ll want to start reviewing brochures and advertisements for itinerant speakers and pastor’s conferences. Maybe start asking around in order to find out if your DS in your denomination is one of those the women in ministry keep talking about. Perhaps you’ll want to track down the para-church organizations that are refusing to let women speak to the whole congregation—even letting them speak to churches that want them. When you discover the culprits, speak up and make sure they never speak at your camp or college spiritual emphasis week or conferences—for your daughter’s sake. Apparently “having a denominational stand” isn’t enough for these few holdouts. They need a louder voice. And it is time to speak. Otherwise we’ll just have to quit sending our daughters to the youth conventions.

Keith Drury 4/07/04

Keith.drury@TuesdayColumn.com

Seeds

S.E.E.D.S. Student Action Group (Constitution)
Stewardship, Education, Environment, Disenfranchised, Service

ARTICLE I – Identification

SEEDS student action group of Indiana Wesleyan University is a non-profit organization. The members refer to themselves as SEEDS (using the acronym formed from five core values of Stewardship, Education, Environment, Disenfranchised, and Service).


ARTICLE II – Purpose

Section 1. This organization is founded to heighten awareness on campus of environmental and social justice issues through positive activities (see Amendment B) that build community and impact culture.

Section 2. This organization shall work closely with residence life staff, student government staff and the IWU community to provide mission centered events that enhance life on campus.

Section 3. This organization represents students and staffs who desire to impact their world, local town and campus with principals that promote Stewardship in our lives as Christians.

Section 4. This organization shall not knowingly, as a group become involved in any activity that goes against the policies of the university, or against the spirit behind policies as outlined in the student handbook.

Section 5. This organization is principal focused, desires to educate not proselytize, and has at its heart a Student Development theoretical approach. We are about experiential learning and invite others to join us as we practice stewardship.

ARTICLE III – Membership

Membership in SEEDS is open to anyone, but is limited by our membership rites and seasons at the beginning of each semester. The membership rites consist of attending at least 5 meetings, contributing positively in meetings; attending at least one experiential based program and signing a covenant statement (see Amendment A). There are no tiers to membership, except that we will have a staff/faculty board, an executive committee and charter membership status as well.

ARTICLE IV – Staff/Faculty Board

Our goal is to always have several faculty and staff on our board. We desire to see IWU model a learning environment where faculty and staff learn alongside students while building community. We are excited about the academic mission of IWU and hope to enhance it. We are also excited about the Mentoring focus of the Residence Life Program and hope to enhance it by encouraging relationships that draw faculty, staff and students into closer community while practicing stewardship issues. Faculty and Staff who serve on our board can serve a ½, full or extended term (1/2 = semester only, full=1 school year, extended=decided upon by charter membership vote).

ARTICLE V – Executive Committee

The executive Committee shall consist of a President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer and Advisors who will meet frequently to discuss and evaluate the mission and goals of the organization.

Section 1. Executive Committee

The executive committee shall consist of four officers: a President, Vice-President, Treasurer/Secretary and Social Activities Coordinator. And one or more Advisors who shall be faculty or staff members employed at IWU.

Section 2. Duties of the Executive Committee Officers.

a. The duties of the President shall be to schedule meeting dates, preside at all the meetings, and to appoint committees and to ratify or approve all actions of the organization. The President shall be responsible to keep the organization within the boundaries of its constitution. The President must have a GPA of at least 2.50 and must not be on any academic or citizenship probation and must support the chapel program at IWU holding less than six skips per semester. The President must be a mentor on campus registered through Student Development’s mentoring program.

b. The duties of the Vice-President shall be to assume all of the duties of the President in the event that the President is absent or unable to perform his/her duties. The Vice-President must have a GPA of at least 2.50, must not be on academic or citizenship probation and must support the chapel program at IWU holding less than six skips per semester. The President must be a mentor on campus registered through Student Development’s mentoring program.

c. The duties of the Treasurer/Secretary are twofold: The duties as Treasurer shall be to keep an accurate record of the Residence Hall Association’s budget and expenses incurred including receipts. The duties as Secretary shall be to furnish minutes and information to the group as well as for the archives. The Secretary will furnish the minutes of the previous meeting to other members at each successive meeting. They will also make necessary payments to national organizations SEEDS affiliates with using account numbers provided. They will be responsible for communication to SGO/Student Development of changes to our constitution and practices and processes. The Secretary must have a GPA of at least 2.5, must not be on any academic or citizenship probation and must support the chapel program at IWU holding less than six skips per semester. The President must be a mentor on campus registered through Student Development’s mentoring program.

d. The duties of the Social Activities Officer are to schedule and facilitate calendar items, outreach opportunities and all experiential activities. They will coordinate the set-up and advertising of all on-campus and off-campus activities. They will also respond to the group’s email and update its web and print material.

ARTICLE V – Advisors

The advisor(s) will be currently employed IWU faculty or staff.

Section 1. The duties of the Advisor(s) are to attend the SEEDS meetings when necessary. He/She is in charge of handling the finances with the help of the Treasurer/Secretary. He/She also is to give support to the President and his/her staff.

ARTICLE VI – Meetings

Section 1. Meeting times and dates will be scheduled by the President. They shall be scheduled at the beginning of each semester.

Section 2. The President and Advisor(s) are authorized to call special meetings when needed.

Section 3. The Executive Committee shall meet at least once a month or more often if Advisor(s) deem necessary.

Section 4. The Advisor(s) is/are able to attend all meetings he/she feels necessary.

Section 5. The President must ask the advisor for any and all funds deemed necessary for the activities planned.

Section 6. SEEDS goal is to have one representative from each living area at each meeting. We may not attain this goal initially.

ARTICLE VII – Elections

The executive committee shall be appointed by the Advisor(s) and President. Advisors will be voted upon in open forum at any meeting needed. They will be elected by a 2/3 majority rule.

ARTICLE IX – Finances

Section 1. Funding for all SEEDS events must be approved by the Advisor(s).

Section 2. All receipts will be collected by the Treasurer and given to the Advisor to turn into the Student Development Office.

ARTICLE IX – Parliamentary Authority

The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the organization in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the bylaws and any special rules or order the organization may adopt. Deviation from practice of Rules formally is appropriate when needed at meetings.

ARTICLE X – Amendments

The constitution for the SEEDS Student Action Group may be amended, repealed, or suspended by a two-thirds majority vote of the active members. Ballots must be cast in the person.


We hereby certify that the foregoing constitution was adopted by the current membership at large by a two-thirds majority vote on October 8th, 2004.

Juli Neff & Katrina Korreckt
Co-Presidents 2004-2005

Jason Makowsky & Jill Gay, RD's
Advisor's 2004-2005

Amendment A – Covenant Statement

As a member of SEEDS I seek to live a life that reflects the principal of stewardship. I will attempt this by living in community with my fellow members of SEEDS learning how to care for the environment, its natural resources and my body as a temple of the Holy Spirit. I will attend meetings regularly and be a positive contributor. I will adhere to the outlines within its constitution and look for ways to grow in my walk with Christ as I mentor a student on campus. I believe that the principals of Stewardship, Environmental care, Education, caring for the Disenfranchised and Service to mankind are Kingdom principals and I seek to better model them.

Amendment B – Program Outline

SEEDS Student organization
09/14/04
Submitted by Jason Makowsky

Historical info:
SEEDS idea was created in the fall of 2001 by Paul Stonehouse, a resident director in Hodson Hall. Its original aim was to:

“…educate ourselves, create an awareness [within campus] and surrounding communities, initiate recycling programs/Christian stewardship, community outreach in accordance with campus mission statement – Christ centered, changing the world by developing students in character, scholarship, leadership. Including servant leadership and stewardship of resources [even financial], and to break down barriers – we are not lunatics.”[1]

While it originally yielded 12 members, it never saw the next fall semester. It was a valorous start that was quickly frowned upon by administration because it seemed to suggest IWU had real problems when it came to modeling SEEDS core values of stewardship, environmental policy and care for the disenfranchised.

It attempted to create a lasting organization, but was unable to convince the IWU public that they were “not lunatics.” And thus, build a strong member base. The following is a master plan aimed at resurrecting the organization, changing its objectives slightly and building an organization appealing to students and administration alike. It is also my gift to Paul Stonehouse, my mentor, who taught me through modeling, that the environment is our gift from God and our gift back to Him is how we treat it.

Proposal for Resurrecting SEEDS:

Action steps… (Fall semester of 2004)
1. Research regional college groups similar to SEEDS (field trip?)
2. Fill out paperwork to become a campus group
3. Pursue grant from SGO ($750) to begin SEEDS again
4. Write a constitution
5. Get faculty support (Goff, Drury, Swyers etc…)
6. Get outside organizational support (e.g. Target Earth)
7. Advertise initial student group by shoulder tapping more than advertising, and begin meeting weekly
8. Fulfill objectives through experiential education instead of counter-cultural initiatives (e.g. signs that produce guilt)
9. Build an awareness of our group through positive-partnering initiatives

The “How To” of the above action steps…

Research regional student organizations
I know of several regional chapters (and my list is several years old): Earth Keepers (Wheaton College), Environmental Stewardship Coalition (Calvin College), Butler has a chapter too. Our first goal will be to see what is working and what isn’t. It is also a chance for us to network and make our job easier. We don’t have to re-create the wheel. Once data is collected we can proceed with the next steps.

Fill out paperwork to become campus organization
This step is relatively simple and is hardly worth mentioning, but it is a step we need to attend to. This also includes writing a constitution and petitioning SGO for funds (if available). This step will also generate some buzz with administration wondering if we “are lunatics” and hope to proselytize them all into becoming converts to environmentalism, but we need to at least have our re-defined goals and mission written by this time so they will see we mean them no harm.

Get faculty support
If we ever hope to make it through that first crucial year we need to tie our initiative into the academic side of the institution. This is not only smart politically, but gives us lasting power if it’s seen as an academic initiative (maybe even granting credit to some for lab or practicum experience). I would recommend shoulder tapping several key faculty members that seem to align with our core values like the one’s mentioned above.

Get outside organizational support
While this isn’t mandatory it gives us national resources and chapter name recognition. The key Christian organization seems to be Target Earth, which we have contacted in the past. I would also recommend becoming members of several secular organizations too so we don’t just stay in the bubble.

Recruit Student Base
For our first semester I would recommend recruiting those we know align with our values as well as advertising canvas of interested students who we don’t know yet. We can start with a group as small as six, but 10 would be nice. After that we shouldn’t have a problem with members. I recommend stiff membership criteria so we can keep our values pure since we are a value driven organization.

Experiential Education vs. Proselytizing
This is a subtle difference, but people are not motivated by hate advertising such as catchy posters that convince one they are a rotten dirty consumer of raw materials and they are killing animals, groundwater and making the future bleak by how they waste. They are motivated to a group that has lots of fun, learns about conservation and social action through experiencing it first hand and enjoying each other’s community. This will be our stance and I believe it will attract so many students we will need to open another chapter by the fall of 2005. Below are some of the ways I hope to accomplish this:

þ Concert, co-sponsored by SAC by recognized artist who also models the values we dispense.
þ GeoCaching trip that teaches outdoor care as well as orienteering skills.
þ High Pointers trip discovering local State high points while learning about natural resources and visiting natural spots along the way.
þ Send student sponsor (through grants) to any Soul Search Adventure or Drury outdoor trip with specific goal of modeling SEEDS values to participants.
þ Become local chapter of Rails-to-Trails (Cardinal Greenway) resource center.
þ Co-Sponsor multiple departmental initiatives modeling service to faculty and staff. Clean-up after picnics, community walk day, etc…
þ Have a homeless awareness night where we sleep outdoors in boxes, while fasting and having worship/prayer services.
þ Vision cast how to reach campus in Spring with SEEDS values

Things to cover in a first meeting:
Introduction of idea, why, history
Prayer for what God’s heart is, readings, challenge
Call to action, build a strong foundation
Membership initiative
Fall goals, weekly meetings outline


[1] These notes are taken from the archived meeting minutes (02/05/01). Probably their second or third meeting. No other meeting notes exist.

A Case Study

A Case Study
Jason Makowsky
Indiana Wesleyan University

Submitted for CSA 552: Process of Adult Development
Azusa Pacific University
Dr. Carol Lundberg


Case Study
Grant is a trustworthy leader. He is loved by all on his staff and as a senior others look up to him and his decision making ability. Tonight, after heading home to his dormitory apartment, Grant stops his hall director and asks if they can talk. His countenance reveals that he is wrestling with something big. Grant begins to explain how his relationship with his girlfriend of five years, who he is now engaged to, has never been satisfying. He admits that he thinks that he should break off his engagement of eight months and wants his hall director’s advice. The hall director questions whether Grant just needs to take a break from her, or if his mind is made up? Whichever, he claims he is positive he cannot marry his fiancé. Despite the counsel, Grant decides to drive to his fiancé’s house and meet with her and her family to call off the wedding. The news is not received well. The family is angry and his fiancé is crushed. After hours of discussing the issue, Grant and his fiancé both agree this is the best decision even though others will not understand. He returns that Monday and updates everyone on how things went. Rumors have already begun on the small campus and many people are angry with him and do not understand, but Grant holds to his decision with little support from others.

Abstract
What makes the above situation interesting to this author is the courage Grant took in defying all social norms by breaking off his engagement. This paper will discuss Grant’s story employing insights from Schlossberg’s (1984) Transitions theory as well as Chickering’s (1969) theory on Identity Development. Further discussion will determine whether the theories were useful in helping understand Grant’s developmental process and where the theories failed to lend expertise.

Discussion
Chickering’s revised vectors (Chickering & Reisser, 1993) define the third vector as moving through autonomy toward interdependence. This transition-like vector describes what Grant was faced with in the above case study. He not only made a defining decision contrary to popular opinion, but also worked out the ramifications of the decision in a broader community. He realized that many more people were involved in the wedding day than just himself and his fiancé. He involved her parents in the discussion which illustrated his understanding of the inter-connected nature of his dilemma. Grant clearly showed autonomy and emotional independence typical of vector three likely having arrived there by years of processing this decision. Gray (1999) would compare Grant’s years of processing to the male temperament to go into their cave while sorting problems out. He says, “Men become increasingly focused and withdrawn [when dealing with stress]” (p. 29). Grant’s months of earlier processing, and recent processing with his resident director, revealed his transition through autonomy. Grant showed signs of movement into Chickering’s fourth vector by the way he and his fiancé came to consensus on this issue. The fourth vector describes one who is tolerant of others' views and displays “…the ability to accept individuals for who they are, to respect differences, and to appreciate commonalities” (Reisser, 1995, p. 509).

One interesting result of Grant’s maturation during this time is how his faith development blossomed amidst the crisis. One would assume his decision, in the face of such disapproval, would cause Grant to doubt or at least struggle in his faith, but as he processed the outcome he began to point to ways he perceived God had given him strength. He could sense a renewed excitement in his faith identity. Jones et al. (1986) argue that “spiritual development is no steady, regular advance, but is punctuated by crises in which growth appears to have come to a stop for a time…” (p. 566). Grant’s spiritual breakthrough was certainly a time of growth due to crisis. One weakness of Chickering & Reisser’s (1993) theory is the lack of any type of faith identity as part of maturation. Even in the identity or purpose vectors, the exclusion of faith is apparent, although surely not expected from theorists who do not evaluate from a faith viewpoint.

Grant was also at a cross-road in his development. Not only had he grappled with his faith, relationships, and sense of self, his decision also caused him to wonder about his purpose for the future. He had prepared himself mentally as one who would be married while entering the ministry vocation, but now had to re-invent this self-perception. Grant was juggling with four of Chickering’s vectors during this one decision, which shows the interrelation of the vectors within the model and the model’s inherent weakness in framing development more fluidly. While it helps one understand small achievements along the way it does little to account for student perception, hindsight evaluation, or disordered movement through the vectors.

Another model that frames Grant’s situation in new light is one proposed by Schlossberg et al., (1995). In this Transition model development is outlined as more of a continuum, as opposed to Chickering’s static model of development. Grant’s level of meaning or perception he placed on his decision and its consequences played a vital role in how it caused him to develop. The decision to break off his engagement had rippling effects as well, which, in turn, were new transitions he experienced. Not only was Grant’s fiancé and her family hurt, but friends back at school were too. Valuable to understanding the impact of the transition, Schlossberg et al. propose defining the transition in light of its type, context, and impact. Grant’s decision was unanticipated (type), involved his personal life and public life back at school and within his small town (context), and changed his daily pattern somewhat (impact). The transitional effects he continues to experience are part of the process of understanding and growing through this crisis. Schlossberg et al., (1995) frame their understanding of a transition as one “… moving in,” “moving through,” and “moving out” (Evans et al., 1998, p. 112), of the transition. Grant spent years moving into the transition as he processed feelings toward his fiancé privately. He moved through the transition by processing it with close friends and his hall director and inevitably his fiancé. Finally, as he understands its impact, he puts meaning to it and grows; evidence he is moving out of the transition.

As Grant evaluates his situation he has numerous factors that dictate how he will cope with the situation. Schlossberg et al., (1995) outline in their model many ways of defining more clearly resources that are either pros or cons; referred to as assets and liabilities within the model. Some of Grant’s assets are his optimistic attitude and humble spirit, his support network at home and among close friends, and his desire to cope with the problem by actively taking responsibility for his actions. A few liabilities might be how long he delayed making his decision and what internal factors might still be unrealized as to why he broke off the engagement. The Transition model looks more in depth at the person and the situation to discern meaning. It takes into account more than just the perceived behavior of the individual.

Grant’s particular decision, although significant, seemed to resolve agreeably. He has reconciled with his fiancé and they both are happy with the outcome. They both point to their break-up as significant in their adult development and instrumental in opening more honest dialogue with their parents. Also, they both see sizeable growth in their faith development.

By looking at this situation through the eyes of the mentioned theorists it becomes clear how Grant has been changed by and has learned from the situation. It is also evident that behind everyday decisions, extraordinary growth takes place. Without Grant’s faith, one wonders if things would have worked out much differently. He might have not felt as justified in breaking things off with his fiancé if he did not sense a leading from a divine source. A review of these theories has indeed illustrated that much more was occurring in Grant than the plain eye could see.

References
Chickering, A.W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A.W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Evans, N., Forney, D. & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research and practice (pp. 20-202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gray, J., Ph.D., (1999). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus (p. 29). New York: Harper Collins.
Jones, C., Wainwright, G., & Yarnold, E. (1986). The study of spirituality (p. 566). New York: Oxford University Press.
Reisser, L. (1995). Revisiting the seven vectors. Journal of college student development, 36, 505-511.
Schlossberg, N.K. (1984). Counseling adults in transition. New York: Springer.
Schlossberg, N.K., Waters, E.B., & Goodman, J. (1995). Counseling adults in transition (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

Gay & Lesbian Identity Theory

Seeking Self-Synthesis: A Review of Vivienne Cass’ Model

of Homosexual Identity Formation
Jason Makowsky
Indiana Wesleyan University

Submitted in fulfillment for
CSA 552: Process of Adult Development
Azusa Pacific University
Dr. Carol Lundberg

Abstract

This review of Vivienne Cass’ Homosexual Identity Formation (HIF) model will begin with a brief biographical sketch of the theorist, a historical review of the homosexual culture in America, including the early debate that birthed the model, and the research methods used to develop Cass’ theory. It will highlight the revisions made to the theory recently and site other contributing theories that respond to the Model. A complete outline of the theory as stages, its strengths and weaknesses, and practical uses for both Christian and secular student affairs practitioners will be presented.

Biography

When the term homosexual was first coined in America at the end of the nineteenth century (Rainbow, ¶ 6) we would wait one hundred years before America would begin to understand sexuality in terms of an identity. An Australian named Vivienne Cass is credited with scripting the first homosexual development model (Cass, 1979) which paved the way for later theories. With an earned counseling doctorate from Western Australia’s Murdoch University, and a bachelor and master’s degree from the University of Western Australia in Counseling, Cass is known widely as a clinician, speaker and writer. She is notable in the gay community for being: “The most frequently cited [theorist] of homosexual identity development” (Evans et al., 1998, p. 92). Instead of writing prolifically in Journals, Dr. Cass remains in private clinical practice in Australia. As well as her practice, Cass is also active speaking on the topic of sexology and women’s sexual issues. Her recent work in this area was published in March of 2004 and is heralded as the “…first sex book for women in 30 years” (Media Release, 2004).
Background

Some contend that homosexuality has been with us throughout the ages, but our understanding or even acceptance of it as a lifestyle, at least in America, is a recent phenomenon. A simplistic understanding of America’s history might outline the movement in phases. It began, in the 1930’s by defining the person within the lifestyle as “neurotic, mentally unstable, masochistic, repressed, and egocentric (Deacon et al., 1996, p. 242). It continued throughout the 1940’s and 1950’s by referring to the secretive lifestyle and behavior as ‘homosexual’ with a negative connotation. The 1960’s to present heard the term ‘gay,’ referring to those who identified themselves as such. They were open about issues of sexuality and fought for the rights of their cause. And the 1980’s onward those who strongly identified themselves as gay and openly opposed heterosexuality refer to themselves as ‘queer’ (Dilley, 2002). This typology proposed by Dilley frames the hostility in the twentieth century toward homosexual Americans.

Theory

Cass based her theory on observations during clinical work with gay and lesbian clients in Australia. Her early theory (1979) was a linear-stage model in response to earlier thoughts that homosexuals were merely defined by their behavior. She likely patterned her theory after the multi-stage models of personality development pioneered by people such as sociologist Charles Horton Cooley, philosopher George Herbert Mead, and psychoanalysts Sigmund Freud and Erik Erikson (Blumenfeld & Raymond, 1988, 1993). They believed that personal identity progressed along an interactive dialogue between the individual and his or her environment. Such models may differ in their nuances of human development but all share the basic assumption that humans move through life experiences within a particular framework or schema. Many other noted researchers proposed theoretical models during this time too, they include: Coleman, 1981-1982; Hencken & O’Dowd, 1977; Lee, 1977; McLellan, 1977; B. Miller, 1978; Plummer, 1975; Schafer, 1976; Schultz, 1976; Troiden, 1977 and Weinberg, 1977. This created a rich culture of theory during this time of the emerging homosexual movement aiding later researchers such as, D’Augelli, 1994a; Dilley, 2002; Fassinger, 1998, and Savin-Williams, 1995; built on these earlier theories.

Cass’ (1984) theory presupposes an identity that develops as the homosexual responds to their social environments. Thus, her “psycho-social” model outlines six stages individuals progress through as they seek to come to synthesis with self and society (Evans et al., 1998). In stage one, or identity confusion, a person is beginning to question their assumed heterosexuality. They may either seek to explore their confusion, and thus, move onto stage two or reject it and live in denial. Dilley (2002) suggests that men at this point usually fall into four categories: normal, closeted, parallel, or denying. Normal men are just that, like normal heterosexuals, except they have experimented with men, but it has not changed their identity or lifestyle. Closeted individuals have a same-sex attraction and may even acknowledge privately a gay identity, but don’t interact with other gay men for fear of making it public. Parallel men live two distinct lives keeping both very hidden from the other to avoid tensions. And finally denying men who don’t allow them selves to have an affective, emotional side; they deny it. All four seem to be a form of repression. It is in Cass’ second, identity comparison stage, that the person accepts that they may have homosexual feelings or inclinations, but they still view themselves as heterosexual. In the third stage, identity tolerance, the individual begins to tolerate the concept of a homosexual identity and seeks to be around other individuals who may also identify as homosexual. In moving beyond this toleration stage to acceptance of a homosexual identity, this person, in stage four, begins to identify as a part of a homosexual community. The person feels more comfortable around other homosexual men and women and also begins to self-disclose this identity to others. During identity pride; the fifth stage, the person intensely immerses themselves in homosexual communities and develops strong homosexual networks. They have a more intensified need to self-disclose this identity to others. In identity synthesis, which is stage six of the model, the person finds ways to incorporate this identity in other areas of their lives. The person’s roles and networks are no longer excluded to homosexuals.

Cass’ (1984) model outlined numerous cognitive, behavioral and, affective dimensions used to describe an individual more specifically in their identity development (see Table 1). The dimensions “fill-in the blanks” of the static stage model that might seem rigid at times. The stages are “distinguished by which dimensions are present in individuals at each stage and by the degree of importance given to these dimensions” (Cass, 1984, p. 147).

Method
Cass’ (1984) research elicited the help of sources she met at various events and through her clinical experience as a therapist. While this may seem like a conflict of interest her research methodology wasn’t dependent upon subjectivity. “The design did not require that subjects be randomly selected” (p. 154), she claims. She contacted 227 subjects and 78% of her questionnaires were returned filled-out. The gender split was 109 males and 69 females, of whom 103 and 63 respectively were able to define them selves to exactly one of her stages. She did not include the other 12 respondents in the survey results because they were between stages.

The instrument employed was an identity questionnaire of over two-hundred questions representing the sixteen dimensions she outlined as integral to stage formation (see Table 1). From this she was able to roughly fit her respondents into six grouped categories (stages) using a stage allocation measure. This measure summarized the dimensions into small paragraphs reflecting the value placed upon them. An addition of a level called pre-stage one was added (although no rationale could be found for this). Her questions were set-up on a likert-style scale, with some representing short answers. From the questions presented early predictions were made as to how certain levels of respondents would answer questions. This prediction-style developed the score key used to rate future respondents to the norm of responses. The test along with stage allocation sheet and biographical write-up were sent via mail to respondents assuring them of anonymity. A reminder letter was sent two weeks later with another self-addresses stamped envelop enclosed.

Support and Criticism

The strength of the theory [figure 1.1] initially lies in its psychological and social approach to development as well as a later update Cass (1984) made by adding empirical research. The model differs from others, taking a positive approach to becoming homosexual instead of viewing it through a negative lens (Cass, 1984). It also included gender research that could shed light into lesbian identity development. The most noted finding was the degree to which men tended to fit more neatly into her stages, while women tended to reflect the across-group hypothesis (predicted to actual score was lower). It was the first extensive research done on the most elaborate theory of it’s time.

Critics of the theory disagree with its premise that one must understand it as an identity and not just a set of behaviors. DuBay (1979) views “homosexual identity as a construct expressly created by professional in the field” (Cass, 1984, p.165). Cass (1984) admits that her results only show significance at stages one, five and six (p < .001), with stage three registering low significance (p < .05). She offers fair evidence to support reasons why her findings didn’t fully support her research theory and admits that further work on her method, assumptions and, assessment tools are necessary. Another deviation from her findings is the research of Ritch Savin-Williams (1995), who contends that gender identity for women is more emotional in nature, and for men it is more sexual. He says, “If you want to understand a young woman with same-sex attraction you would do better to understand that she is a young woman first and foremost. She is more like a straight young woman than a gay young man” (Winter, 2004, p. 15). Others such as Kathleen Edwards assert, “Sexual identity is a complex concept that involves biological factors, gender roles, sociocultural influences, and sexual orientation in relation to sexual development” (Edwards & Brooks, 1999, p. 1). And the response from the Christian scholar’s has been varied. While no response in the form of a proposed theory is appropriate, since some conservative Christians label homosexuality’s etiology as a choice, not an identity, many have proposed healing therapies that seem to reverse the stages proposed by identity theorists, moving struggling gays back to heterosexuality (Throckmorton, 1998). Other scholarly reviews have supported the claims of Throckmorton and others and these represent a vast array of literature that has yet to gain credence with the clinical world. Worth noting is the findings of Dr. Robert Spitzer, one time President of the American Psychological Association (APA), whose interest in homosexuals digressing through identity development and attaining heterosexuality again, ruffled the research community (Throckmorton, 2004). Applications

Whether in a secular or religious environment the research suggests volumes of recommendations for student affairs professionals as they seek to meet the needs of the emerging generation of college students entering our campuses. Some practical steps are to create environments that are safe for the exploration of sexual identity. Newly created centers for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered and Queer (GLBTQ) students are becoming many universities way of providing support for this sexual-minority. Other ideas encourage a complete examination of the entire institution (Sanlo, 2002). He proposes changes in what language we use, how silent we are, how well we train, mentor and research new ways to address the needs of GLBTQ students. Other schools have adopted specialized living environments, clubs and gay-strait initiatives and have found success. The increased population of gay and lesbian students in Christian institutions of higher education has prompted the bravest of schools to host colloquium on the subject.

Conclusions

Cass’ (1984) theory of homosexual identity formation is useful to this researcher as he seeks to understand the life experiences of many young men who daily “squirm in the closet” with their sexual identity in a hostile Christian environment. It also is helpful in framing the social nature of this model and how it is inextricably linked to living in community. And it serves as a reference point to move beyond the etiology of the issue and begin to ask why homosexual identity forms so similarly for so many students? More profound exegesis of scripture will be required for the new generation of church leaders as this issue will continue to polarize our nation, as was evident in our recent election. Christians have been forced into a catch-22 scenario between love and justice. Must we love our neighbor or defend our heritage?



Figure 1.1 Cass’ (HIF) Model

Stage One, identity confusionä
Information about homosexuality becomes personally relevant for the individual at this stage, thus causing the person to be confused about his or her sexual identity. A person begins to wonder if he or she is gay or lesbian.

Stage Two, identity comparison ä
A person in this stage accepts the possibility that he or she is gay or lesbian. For many, it is a

way to help cope with the confusion that is prevalent in stage one.

Stage Three, identity tolerance ä
The individual accepts the fact that he or she is gay. This leads to a process of recognizing the needs associated with being gay.

Stage Four, identity acceptanceä
A person desires more contact with gay culture, which increases contact with other gay people. The increased contact leads to a more positive gay self-image. This is an important step in the coming-out experience.

Stage Five, identity prideä
The individual in this stage becomes immersed in gay life, which means that they spend little time interacting with heterosexual people. There can be anger at heterosexual people who are no longer viewed as allies during this stage.

Stage Six, identity synthesis
A person realizes that it is not an us-versus-them situation. The anger experienced in the previous stage subsides and it is now possible to believe that people who are not gay can be allies and can be trusted
*adapted from a University of Maine web-publication (Graham & Phelps, 2003-2004)


References

Blumenfeld, W.J. & Raymond, D., (1988, 1993). Looking at gay and lesbian life. Boston: Beacon Press. Retrieved as a partial reprint at http://www.geocities.com/
WestHollywood/Parade/9548/article_sexual_identity.html

Cass, V. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of homosexuality. 4(3), 219-235.

Cass, V. C. (1984). Homosexual identity formation: Testing a theoretical model. Journal of Sex Research, 20(2), 143-167.

Coleman, E., (1981-1982). Developmental stages of the coming-out process. The Journal of Homosexuality.

D'Augelli, A. R. (1994a). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312-333). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Deacon, S. A., Reinke, L., & Viers, D. (1996). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for bisexual couples: Expanding the realms of therapy. The American Journal of Family
Therapy, 24, 242-258.

Dilley, P. (2002). Queer man on campus: A history of non-heterosexual college men, 1945–2000. New York: Routledge-Falmer.

DuBay, W.H., (1979). Gay identity: Concept problems and alternatives. Unpublished manuscript.

Edwards, K. & Brooks, A. (1999). The development of sexual identity. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 84, 49-57.

Evans, N., Forney, D. & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research and practice (pp. 89-106). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fassinger, R. E. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity and student development theory. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 13-22). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Graham, J., Phelps, L., (2003-2004). Creating safe spaces for all youth: Working with gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth. Family Issues: Current research on family topics for Maine educators, 4428. Retrieved from http://www.umext.maine.edu/ onlinepubs/htmpubs/4428.htm

Hencken, J.D. & O’Dowd, W.T. (1977). Coming out as an aspect of identity formation. Gay academic union journal: Gay saber, 1, 18-26.

Lee, J.A. (1977). Going public: A study in the sociology of homosexual liberation. Journal of homosexuality, 3, 49-78.

McLellan, E.A. (1977), Lesbian identity: A theological and psychological inquiry into the developmental stages of the identity of a lesbian. Unpublished manuscript.

Media Release. (2004). Retrieved Novemeber 4, 2004 from Brightfire Press’ Web site: http://www.brightfire.com .au/press_room_-_media_releases_-_03_04_-_doc_01.php

Miller, B. (1978). Adult sexual resocialization: Adjustments towards a stigmatized identity. Alternative lifestyles, 1, 207-234.

Plummer, K. (1975). Sexual stigma: An interactionist account. New York: Routledge & Kegan-Paul.

Rainbow Educators. (n.d.). Retrieved Novemeber 4, 2004 from University of San Diego’s, United Front Web site: http://www.sandiego.edu/unitedfront/Rainbow411.htm

Sanlo, R. (2002). Scholarship in student affairs:
thinking outside the triangle, or tabasco on cantaloupe. NASPA Journal, 39(2).

Savin-Williams, R. C. (1995). Lesbian, gay male, and bisexual adolescents. In A. R. D'Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan: Psychological perspectives (pp. 165-189). New York: Oxford University Press.

Schafer, S. (1976). Sexual and social problems of lesbians. The journal of sex research, 12, 50-69.

Schultz, S. (1976). Coming out and the growth of gay people in society. Unpublished manuscript.

Throckmorton, W. (1998). Efforts to modify sexual orientation: A review of the outcome literature and ethical issues. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 20, 283-304.

Throckmorton, W. (2004). I do exist. Video on becoming heterosexual again. Truth comes out project.

Troiden, R.R. (1977). Becoming a homosexual: Research on acquiring a homosexual identity. Unpublished manuscript.

Weinberg, T. (1977). Becoming homosexual: Self-discrepency, self-identity, and self-maintenance. Unpublished manuscript.

Winter, M. (2004). ReConceptualizing the gay teen. Human ecology, June, 14-16.

Ralph W. Kerry

My mood right now: TIRED
My Music right now: Jars Of Clay, Sing of Your Mercies

OK, the election is over and I confess; I watched the whole thing until about midnight. Then I went home and listened to it on the radio until about 1am. Then I woke up early to see what had happened. I know for sure that others did too, I could see it in their eyes the next day. The cool thing was that it was an absolute waste of time. I confess (again), I am a moderate politically. My close friends hate me sometimes, I argue the issue from all sides when it is convenient (or interesting) to me. But somewhere between Tim Russert, MSNBC and FoxNews I became addicted using multiple forms of media to feed my addiction (TV, radio, internet and lunch discussions).

As a moderate I really didn't care who won the election! Sure, my upbringing leaves the residue of religious conservatism all over my teeth, but I am one of the few who is getting more liberal as he gets older (more on that later). So, If I could create a candidate (like I would a fantasy football team, or XBox basketball team) it would be swell. I would give him (or her) environmental concern (x10) and Pro-life tendencies with appeal to liberals (x10) and smooth conversational ability (like a jazz-lick, x10). They would be a cross between Alan Keyes, Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt and Shania Twain (nice hair).

On a serious note, I was taken back by the neato ice-rink display in Freedom Square on election night that would shade the stenciled map either blue or red depending on which candidate won the states electoral vote. It now serves as a reminder of how polarized our nation is. Conservatism is dead. The new pundant will be highly educated and will become more moderate every year in my opinion. Care to chime in?