We Believe, We Vote doesn't make sense

As the midterm elections are approaching for the region, it is important to consider many of the different perspectives the candidates are bringing to light through their campaigns. We Believe We Vote is a recently-founded organization that claims a non-partisan, Biblically-founded evaluation of candidates running for political offices in the greater Spokane area.

Read More

Editorial: Why "Masks" was retracted

On May 14, The Whitworthian published a story in the opinions section called “Masks: one student’s story of discrimination on campus.” This story was published anonymously. While publishing anonymously is not ideal in most situations, The Whitworthian’s policies allow for anonymity when there is evidence that revealing the identity of people represented or quoted in an article may cause undue harm, emotional, physical or other, and when an editor determines there is sufficient verification of the facts, events, quotations, etc. present in the anonymous account.

In the case of “Masks,” editors felt the article both earned anonymity and could be verified. Anonymity was granted because the intent of the story was not meant to target specific individuals, but to bring to light the fact that despite Whitworth’s efforts to be supportive and inclusive, some students do not feel it is as welcoming as it seems. Identifying figures in the account may have caused readers to instead focus on individuals rather than the larger problem outlined in the story. As it was published in the opinions section, the story was not intended to be taken as a news account, but as the perspective of one student.

After much thought, the editors have decided to take “Masks” down. We appreciate the author’s perspective and respect people who share their experiences, but believe there are reasons the article should not remain posted. This is not a response to any pressure from administration or other outside parties.

First, while it is mentioned above we believe that “Masks” deserved anonymity, its anonymous status has caused some readers to try to guess who the author is, or who other people in the story might be. The Whitworthian is responsible for protecting the anonymity of such sources, and not protecting anonymity could be harmful for people involved. Second, the editors feel there are more effective ways this story could be told. There are always many sides to each situation, and since the publishing of “Masks,” the editors have heard differing perspectives on this issue.  “Masks” in its current state, with its combination of anonymity and a singular source, may not provide the most accurate information to enter this complex conversation as it could if told in a different form. Finally, according to the May 15 statement by Lorna Hernandez Jarvis, chief diversity officer and associate vice president for diversity, equity & inclusion, the university is still continuing its formal inquiry into the issue. The publication of “Masks” could interfere with this investigation.

It is for these reasons that “Masks” was removed from thewhitworthian.news. The Whitworthian editors appreciate the bravery of the “Masks” author for coming forward with their experience, and hope that for those that read it, it served as a catalyst for necessary dialogue on campus. Based on the online response, it’s clear that fighting discrimination and injustice is something Whitworthian readers take very seriously. We hope to continue to bring a voice to these issues in the future.

Editorials in the "In the Loop" section reflect the majority opinion of the Editorial Board, comprised of five editors.


Remember the first ladies


Abby Nye

The former first lady, Barbara Bush, passed away on April 17 of this year. In honor of her passing, I believe it is necessary to remember the ways in which the first ladies have influenced American politics and culture. Although there is no job description given for the position of the first lady, Encyclopaedia Brittanica holds that many first ladies have used their influence to bring changes within legislation, social reforms and particularly women’s rights.      

The second first lady, Abigail Adams supported women’s rights in letters she wrote to her husband, President John Adams. In 1776 she asked of him, “Remember the Ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.” This action was one of the first in the long tradition of first ladies addressing certain social justice issues of their time. Adams focused particularly on women’s rights and encourages others to as well. According to the National Archives, Adams wrote to John, “If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion (sic), and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.” Adams’ desire for gender equality resonates with our culture today as we still address social injustices committed particularly toward women.

Sarah Childress Polk redefined the ways American women were viewed and limited to motherhood. According to whitehouse.gov, in a time where women’s jobs were as mothers, Polk had to define a place for herself due to her childlessness. In her spare time, she became very involved in the political activities of her husband, like helping him write speeches, copying his correspondence, and giving him advice. Polk redefined the boundaries of women at her time, securing a place outside of motherhood, within politics to find success.

Caroline Harrison, the 23rd first lady acted in ways that supported women in more prominent career positions and lived out her interests in art. According to whitehouse.gov, Harrison enjoyed dancing, painting, and playing piano. She involved her daughter in dance lessons and encouraged creativity. Harrison advocated for women’s rights by raising funds for Johns Hopkins University medical school under the condition that they admit women and established the Daughters of the American Revolution, honoring their patriocity and family’s service to American independence. Harrison’s influence today may encourage some to donate to causes that are important to them, such as women’s rights and honor.

Eleanor Roosevelt served as the first lady from 1933-1945. Roosevelt redefined what it meant to be a first lady. She traveled to all parts of the country, held press conferences, and even began her own radio broadcast and newspaper column. After her husband’s death, Roosevelt began her service as an American spokeswoman in the United Nations. Despite the role of “hostess” the first lady was expected to play, Roosevelt made her own way by working in American politics and the United Nations.

In her role as first lady, Barbara Bush won over the affection of Americans through her grandmotherly charm and smart wit. Bush lived out her role as first lady based on compassion, after losing a young daughter to leukemia. According to whitehouse.gov, she chosen to take on the literacy of America as her special cause, and become an honorary chairperson of the Barbara Bush Foundation of Family Literacy.

As the first African-American first lady, Michelle Obama took on many social issues that were close to her heart, addressing women’s rights, children’s health, and education for international girls. Obama launched education programs such as Reach Higher, which encouraged all students to continue their education beyond high school, and Let Girls Learn, which called countries around the world to support education for women.  

From advocating for women’s rights, pursuing a role in politics, and supporting children in academic success, first ladies have made prominent changes to American politics and culture. In honor of Barbara Bush’s recent death, I believe it is appropriate to bring attention to all the work that first ladies have done and continue to do. We cannot forget that politics do not belong strictly to the president, but the first ladies as well. I hope that by remembering our first ladies, their legacy may live on and we may find a place of hope and promise in the work they have done.


Helicopter parenting prevents necessary growth in kids

Ein Huie

“Helicopter parenting” relates to the event in which parents or guardians monitor every aspect of their student’s life. “Helicopter parenting” can be very dangerous to the growth needed to reach adulthood. Although there can be some benefits to this, the list of adverse effects greatly outweighs the long-term effects on the student.

In high school, parenting strategies that utilize high child-parent involvement and monitoring have a necessary place in the family. The family unit is where effective communication and long-term relationships are created, grown and taught. For some, the family unit is where connection happens and gives parents a chance to try different parenting strategies. In addition, growing up in a family unit gives the children a chance to ideate and shape their worldviews and personalities and decide what they want their role to be in the family. When students are in high school, family roles have been established and routine for the past 17-18 years. Then comes college.

According to Collegeboard, about 20 percent of college students still live at home during their college years. This still leaves a large majority of students leaving the family unit, only to return for breaks and possibly for the summer. In college, individual roles change in the family. This change in the family unit is inevitable and yet parents often don’t transition as well as their children.

“But now [as parents] live in fear that something will happen to [our kids]...It’s a more amorphous fear of a community and a culture that is not geared toward protecting children. And so we postpone giving them any sort of independence until it would be embarrassing not to,” Naomi Riley wrote in an article for the “New York Post” on helicopter parenting. College is often far away ,in an unfamiliar city so the root of fear being in a lack of community and individual trust is thoroughly validated.

As a college student, it is usually easy to make that transition. New friends become like brothers and sisters, a cafeteria feeds you for every meal and facilities typically clean your residence hall and bathroom.

As stated in an March 7 article, “Whitworth Meets Criteria for Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs,” Whitworth does well at meeting a student’s basic needs, similar to a parent or guardian supplying basic needs in childhood. If parents were highly involved in their child’s middle and high school life, then they might expect to be as involved in their college career. This could grow from the fact that children have always been under their wing to protect and watch over and now are out “in the real world”.

In their eyes, there a multitude of other factors (new city, new friends, new responsibilities etc…) that have been added to the equation of keeping you safe, but none of them are in their immediate control anymore. Without immediate control, parents feel as if they have to try get involved as often as possible and text or call or email often to “stay in the loop” - this is the embodiment of a helicopter parent.

As many have experienced, college is difficult. Therefore, having highly involved parents can seem very beneficial. They send reminders when payments are due and to talk to professors, they stay up-to-date on your grades, they know who their child’s friends are and all about their love-life and the list goes on.

From the outside, having helicopter parents can seem like a beneficial lifestyle in college, especially in the first and second years. However, it is controlling and needs to be stood up to. As the years go on, the high level of parent involvement needs to decrease if parents truly want their children to reach independent adulthood.

The parents should not be the only one’s wanting this; students need to want this too and understand the long-term consequences for their own lives. If by the end of the student’s years in college parents have done all the reminding for the student so that they are conditioned to not have to write things down or learn from missing an assignment or payment, adulthood will hit the fresh graduate like a train.

We have all heard that college is the place for growing adults and growing independence. That includes independence from parents. Allowing parents to “be” helicopters for four years will leave children with an inability to fend for themselves in the “real world” because they have never had to do it independently; they have never been “thrown into the deep end”.

I am not saying that parents should throw their children into the deep end and walk away. I am arguing that parents need to be aware of their level of involvement in their students live.

“Separation is good and essential for you both. It's truistic to state that children need to become independent decision-makers who learn from their own mistakes and failures. Otherwise, how will they manage to put your affairs in order on the day you die? Since you cannot promise to live forever, you have to learn to let them go,” Phillip Hodson wrote in the article “My message to the parents who can’t let their children go: grow up” for “The Guardian.”

The transition for parents to let go of their kids and remove themselves from acting on “helicopter-tendencies” will benefit both the parent and the student greatly. As parents of college students, parents would be most effective in growing their children into adults by giving them a sense of independence that allows the child to go to them when they want. Helicopter parenting is a poor parenting strategy which robs parents of their own individual growth, as well as robs their children of necessary growth as they strive to reach independent adulthood.

Contact Ein Huie at dhuie19@my.whitworth.edu           


Editorial: In the Loop Departmental tassels support diverse studies

Historically, Whitworth has followed the tradition of having departmental colored tassels, however this year, graduates will be wearing uniformly colored tassels. The different colored tassels distinguish the different disciplines recognized at the graduation ceremony. The different colored tassels are often associated with the pride of graduating with a specific area of study.

Choosing to provide all graduates with a uniformly colored tassel overlooks the diverse areas of study Whitworth offers its students. Because all students must take similar gen-ed classes, like Core, studying different disciplines can provide the gen-ed classes with a more diverse perspective. Providing students with the same colored tassel diminishes the benefits of the diverse areas of study Whitworth offers.

At an liberal arts institution like Whitworth, focusing on different areas of study is encouraged. Providing students with departmental colored tassel allows a graduate to feel pride for their specific area of study. Especially for the majors that do not have as many participants, having a different colored tassel can bring awareness and attention to the qualifications of each major.

“I am not just graduate from Whitworth, I am a graduate from the School of Education,” senior Margo Jensen said.

While departmental tassels may offer a sense of pride to the graduating students, there may be some who feel overlooked or left out of this system. For example, math majors don’t have their own color, and are either grouped with the science majors or the liberal arts majors. In the same way, some majors may feel as though their tassel’s color does not accurately reflect their field of study. Art majors are given the color “drab,” which doesn’t necessarily reflect the major, which is often associated with many different colors.

Although there are differing opinions, there are students who don’t have a preference of whether or not tassels are uniform or reflect a specific department. The color of a tassel may be considered insignificant to the major and area of study of a student.


“It would have been cool to have some kind of differentiation to reflect 4 years of study, but it’s just a tassel,” said senior, Kylie Guenther.

There are many benefits and drawbacks of the decision to implement uniformly colored tassels. For some students, it may be a relief to wear a more appealing colored tassel than they were assigned. For others, it may feel diminishing to their area of study. Departmental colored tassels reflect the diverse perspectives that Whitworth values. Distinguishing the different areas of study at the graduation ceremony may bring a sense of pride to students who value the contributions of their specific field to the Whitworth’s liberal arts program.

Editorials in the "In the Loop" section reflect the majority opinion of the Editorial Board, comprised of five editors.




Counseling center needs specialized therapists


Abby Nye

At Whitworth, we are privileged to have a counseling center that offers 6 free counseling sessions a year. This resource has helped me plenty of times when dealing with issues of academic fears, my social life, and other simple hardships and I know many who have reaped this benefit as well. While less severe mental health issues are the most prevalent for a college campus, there may be students who require more help than what can be provided at this counseling center.

According to the US National Library of Health, the onset many psychological disorders including OCD, Bipolar Disorder, Anxiety Disorders, and substance abuse disorders is in the late teens and early twenties. This implies that college-age students are likely to start experiencing signs of their disorders at college. Although most people likely won’t have a psychological disorder develop suddenly during this time, there will be some.

I believe that Whitworth should have more specialized therapists in the counseling center so that students who do develop a more severe psychological disorder can be treated here on campus. Being redirected to off-campus facilities can have its benefits, including a more specialized treatment and location. However many students don’t have the time to seek out a therapist off-campus. Not only that, the cost of seeing a more specialized person increases greatly. Many insurance policies won’t cover the necessary amount of treatment needed for some psychological disorders. I also believe many students don’t feel like they can access someone who would really understand their situation if they felt as though they had a more severe psychological disorder on campus. This can lead to some self-destructive and unsuccessful behaviors if they don’t receive accurate treatment.

Providing access to more specialized counselors who can help with students struggling with new diagnosis, like OCD or Bipolar, could greatly increase some students’ success and allow them to thrive despite a mental health condition. I believe providing more specialized counselors can increase a students’ confidence in their academic and social life. Providing more specialized counselors may cost more, and I think that can be solved by researching which psychological disorder may be the most prevalent to seek out someone who can help the most.

Although our counselors do a great job, and should continue to provide the support most students need, it is important to provide more qualified people to diagnose some psychological disorders. Given the age of onset of many disorders, now is the time when students would need mental health help the most.

Contact Abby Nye at anye19@my.whitworth.edu

Call to action for students who feel misrepresented

Hannah Howell | Guest Writer

The opinions editor of The Whitworthian, whose articles I’m always eager to read and whom I respect, wrote in the most recent issue of the paper that “ASWU does not accurately represent the student body.” Her argument was founded on the recent ratification of a resolution by the Associated Students of Whitworth University (ASWU) and lack of constituency outreach by ASWU senators and representatives to garner input about this resolution. I’m writing now because I am one of three off-campus representatives, and I helped craft the resolution. I care deeply to hear, digest, and thoughtfully respond to this feedback, because it pertains unequivocally to me.

I want to begin with a sincere apology to all off-campus students who feel their elected representation is failing them, followed by an invitation—or an exhortation, rather—to work with us. On February 23, six days before the vote on the resolution took place, off-campus senator Gracie Meiners sent an email to all 1,000-1,200 off-campus students explaining the resolution. Her email explicitly stated that it would express “Whitworth University students' support of our undocumented students, immigrant students, and students with immigrant families here at our university,” and invited feedback either through email or at the next meeting.

We want to do our best by our off-campus community, but we simply can’t represent the opinions we don’t hear. The fact of the matter is that of those who responded to our email, all but six urged us to vote yes on this resolution, which segues into another valid concern. It’s not lost on me that perhaps few people vocalized opposition of the resolution because they felt that they couldn’t. In the words of a contemporaneous article (“Conservative opinions overlooked at Whitworth”), a swath of the off-campus community might not have reached out to us because they experience Whitworth as a place that “cannot conceive nor respect the fact that there are many students who have different political views than those in leadership.” They may fear we (off-campus leadership) will “criticize [their] way of life and thinking.” The author of the opinion editorial to which I’m referring says, “we are the minority,” and he personally is “not the sort to openly lament and complain” until catered to.

Consider our dilemma. On the one hand, the conservative contributing writer who clearly states he does “not support DACA” says he and like-minded students are in the minority and reluctant “to cause commotion to get [themselves] heard.” Fair enough. On the other hand, the Opinion Editor says, “A leadership that requires more outreach and better representation of all students must be put into place for all students to feel as though Whitworth reflects majority opinions.” (Emphasis added). A valid point. Now let’s reexamine the resolution ASWU passed. The vast majority of what was heard both on and off-campus from students was support of the resolution. We did “reflect majority opinions” by adopting the resolution. So, our dilemma is: if a quantitative majority calls on us four off-campus representatives in ASWU—three Reps and one Senator—to vote one way, are we to assume that the minority of what we hear is actually a quiet majority disinclined to speak their mind, and vote the other way? It’s a Catch-22.

I truly empathize with the editor's frustration—in which I know she’s not alone—that a smorgasbord of valuable voices doesn’t have a seat at the table when it comes to ASWU decisions. That is indisputably a problem that needs fixing. All things considered, I propose a small step toward addressing the problem and navigating the aforementioned Catch-22. When it comes to achieving more accurate representation of off-campus students, we need suggestions about how to better confer and receive information if email isn’t working (which it evidently isn’t). Would off-campus students like to give us their addresses and receive a physical newsletter in the mail? We can make that happen. Would they like information through texts? We can do that if they give us their numbers. Should we set up a Facebook page that off-campus students can like or follow? If that’s helpful, we’ll make one immediately.

Off-campus students can and should tell us how to do our jobs better for them. I propose that off-campus students engage. Writing an op-ed expressing disappointment in ASWU is an excellent first step and I commend the Opinion Editor for doing so, but to see any change moving forward, we need concrete suggestions for solutions from the rest of the off-campus community. Students do “deserve the opportunity to be heard.” They do deserve to “have their opinion be expressed in ASWU.” They do “deserve the chance to speak up.” Now, it’s time for them to seize that opportunity.

Contact Hannah Howell at hhowell18@my.whitworth.edu.

Bandura's modeling theory alive on campus


Ein Huie

“Behavior is learned from the environment through the process of observational learning.” Albert Bandura, a personality psychologist known for his social learning theory, addresses behavior in relation to the environment. Specifically, he believes that we make decisions in shaping our behavior based on the model set by those around us. For example, our inhibitions would tell us that, during a dance party, if everyone else is dancing like fools, we can and should too.

This is a form of behavioral disinhibition because our constraints have been weakened by observing the behavior of those around us. In Bandura’s social learning theory, also referred to as modeling theory, everyone is a model. If you choose to follow the behavior of another person then you are following along in the steps of what Bandura refers to as the observational learning process.

First, we are attentive to what our model/models are doing and we observe their behavior. Second, we retain what we just saw for the goal of imitating it. Third, if we decide to follow through on the behavior, we produce a behavior similar to the one we have observed and retained. Finally, since we perceived our model achieving some sort of reward for their behavior, if we imitate it, we believe we will receive the same or similar reward.

As students of Whitworth, it is not foreign knowledge that there is a norm for the “stereotypical Whitworth student.” Chacos, flannels, “beloved” tattoos, coffee in mugs, one-on-one conversations, frisbees, hammocks, Christian; these are just a few of the items that are key to being the ultimate Whitworth student. So what if you don’t fit in? What if you hate coffee, can’t throw a frisbee to save your life, prefer social gatherings over intimate conversations, and prefer close-toed shoes over freeing your toes? Have you done it wrong? Is there something missing?

Let me be the first to tell you NO. It is of my opinion that many of us have fallen into the swing of Bandura’s modeling theory. When we come to campus, many of us students seek to figure out who we are becoming. We want to make friends, have fun and be successful, but we also want to fit in. Outside of fitting in as a Whitworth pirate through our classes, residence halls and sports, seeking out other upperclassmen as models of behavior can be very influential in determining much of our overall behavior for the next four years.

I believe that the environment we are placed in takes a toll on how we act, dress and believe. The “Whitworth stereotype” is a product of Bandura’s modeling theory. Ask yourself, if I was not at this school, would I be dressed the way I am? Would I be pursuing my faith the way I am currently? Would my interests and hobbies be the same?

If you think you fit the stereotype or if you have been told you do, you are a product of your environment. This is neither bad, nor good; it just is. If you do not believe you fit the stereotype, you have not done anything wrong either.

I believe Bandura would argue that you just have chosen to pick a different model. Maybe your models are those on your sports team, maybe your models are your parents or friends from high school? Everyone has a model whether they know it or not and everyone allows their environment to influence some aspect of their behavior.

I don’t believe that there is anything wrong with which model you choose to pursue or have been shaped by; I simply want to challenge the student body to look at the “stereotypical Whitworth student” from a psychology perspective in hopes of eliminating any possible shame in not being in that group.

Contact Ein Huie at dhuie19@my.whitworth.edu

So You Feel Overlooked? Let’s Talk: A Response to "Conservative opinions overlooked"

Josiah Van Wingerden, '17

I am writing this letter to respond to the article titled, “Conservative Opinions Overlooked at Whitworth,” published in the Whitworthian Opinions Section on March 21.

The purpose of my response is not to shame or condemn the author or school newspaper; rather, my hope is to start a constructive conversation about political opinions, affiliations and the environment of Whitworth. To anyone who may read this letter, I ask that you read carefully and thoroughly.

I’ll respond to each major point made in the article, so I apologize if the letter is a bit lengthy. But it’s so important.

In the first paragraph of the article, the author states that he is a proud conservative, that he loves this country, its laws and guns, that he does not support the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals legislation and that he will not apologize for his race (or gender)— Caucasian and male.

Let me be clear that I have absolutely no issue whatsoever with him being conservative or with what he believes. We have the right as people to express our views. And I’m actually glad that he is. It just may be the spark that starts conversations and inspires us to listen to one another.

However, I believe the author is gravely mistaken on multiple fronts. It is because of this belief that I felt compelled to respond to the article and offer a difference of perspective and values.

Universities and colleges are supposed to be places where people come not only for education, but also to be exposed to different people, beliefs, values and views. So that people can be more thoughtful and compassionate. So people can think critically about our society and thus, be better equipped to “serve humanity.” And that means all of humanity. I hope the author understands that.

Regarding the idea of apologizing for race, no one asked him to. As a person of color who attended Whitworth the same time as the author, I never asked him to. The thought of that never even crossed my mind.

The color of a person’s skin is determined biologically during development, influenced by the genetic makeup of the parents. This means that a person has literally no control over what he or she will look like.

We have no control over what color our skin will be, what our body can and cannot do, what socioeconomic class we’ll be born into, where we’ll be born or if we’ll even be born at all.

On the other hand, “race” is a man-made historical construct designed to categorize people and to falsely “define” what it means to be black, brown, tan and white.

People of color are not asking white people to apologize for being white. Trust me, we don’t want it. Why would we ask someone to apologize for something they have no control over? That does not make sense.

Rather, it has been white people who have been asking people who are not white to stop talking about how their races have affected the way we interact in this country. But we are not going to stop talking about it.

It seems like the author is playing the victim throughout the whole article— saying that he as a conservative, middle-class, white male— feels that he cannot adequately articulate himself without fear of ridicule.

However, since the inception of the United States, white men have never had to apologize for being white. White men have never been unwelcomed in this country or at colleges. White men have always had the power in this country and thus, the ability to enact legislation and place systems and structures that benefit them.

White men are the only major people group that has not experienced some form of marginalization based on race or biological predisposition. Almost every other major race of people has.

This is called “white-privilege.” This is all people of color like myself want you and others to acknowledge. We do not want pity or apologies, but a desire to learn about others and an attempt to reach a mutual understanding of history.

Acknowledge the fact that white people, heterosexual men specifically, have had and still have the upper hand and more opportunity to succeed in this country. And they’ve had it for a long time.

This country was founded by white men and for white men, to promote ideas and enact laws that specifically benefited them and no one else. Including educational institutions like Whitworth.

In the second and third paragraphs, the author states the theme of the whole piece—that he feels unwelcome at Whitworth because he is a conservative and Whitworth is a “liberal” institution that pushes for diversity. He also says he disagrees with the student government’s decision to support DACA.

First, supporting DACA does not mean that Whitworth is a liberal institution. Or that the majority of its students are liberal; let’s not get confused. I’d actually suggest the opposite and so do recent decisions made by administration and faculty members, which were supported by its students just last year.

For example, the administration of Whitworth cut ties with Planned Parenthood last year. Beck Taylor stated that the university would no longer offer experience or internship credits for its students through the organization.

Additionally, the Students for Life and Young Americans for Freedom clubs, both outwardly rooted in conservative beliefs, have a significant presence on and off campus.

Those two clubs are also affiliated with the national organizations. And both were chartered by the student government with support from their peers.

Conversely, the “pro-choice” student club, Generation Action, was not allowed to have affiliation with any national organization. It was not chartered due to lack of support.

So no, Whitworth is not a “liberal” institution, as the author claims. It is still rooted in and supports conservative beliefs and ideas, like other institutions before it.

And, I truly mean no disrespect to anyone when I say this—especially David Garcia, Shawn Washington, Lulu Gonzalez or Beck Taylor for their efforts—but Whitworth is not a diverse institution.

While it is true that the number of underrepresented students has jumped significantly in recent years, Whitworth still has a long way to go to achieve its diversity goals.

Black, Hispanic, Asian and LGBT faculty, staff members and students are still underrepresented at Whitworth and in Christian Higher Education in general, as are people with varying levels of physical and mental abilities.

Whitworth students, staff, faculty and administration members are all still predominantly white, conservative, Christian and middle-to-upper class.

So, I guess I am having a hard time understanding why the author feels so unwelcome at a place that was made for him.

In response to loving guns and opposing stricter regulations, gun control does not mean taking all guns away. Gun control does not mean changing the Second Amendment.

It is the idea that we as a society should make it harder for a person to abuse gun ownership by running more thorough background checks and comprehensive gun safety courses. Gun violence has to stop. I think we can all agree on that.

It seems like the author randomly throws a jab at DACA, saying he doesn’t support it, but doesn’t give a reason why. I am not saying that he has to necessarily, but it’s a cheap shot. Does he want members of the Whitworth community to be subject and vulnerable to deportation? If so, why?

DACA is not a political issue— it is a human one. That is why it is “preached” in the chapel.

By the way, the forum on Planned Parenthood when Beck made his statement was held in the chapel and I didn’t hear conservative or liberal students complain about that. Liberal students actually showed up to the forum.

Many families leave their countries because of political unrest, oppression, violence and turmoil. They are constantly told that “America is the land of opportunity,” and they just want those opportunities, hopes and dreams for a better life here.

That is why they are called “DREAMers.” DREAMers go to Whitworth. They pay the same amount of tuition and fees every year as you. They are there for the same reason as you are: education.

They grew up in this country. They have jobs. They pay taxes. They contribute heavily to society. They are talented. They do not attack, harm or hurt you in any way.

They were not brought here of their own accord; they had no choice. Neither did their parents and families. Why should we punish them for that?

Their fear of being deported and having their lives fundamentally changed because of that is real. I want you, the author, to understand that fact.

I understand that you, the author, will believe what you want to and that my response is not going to fundamentally change those beliefs. I get that. I respect that. I just hope you take the time to read this and understand the point of view that I’m coming from.

The author asked for others to be more considerate and thoughtful at the end of his piece, so I am asking something of him to end mine.

Before he says he feels unwelcome again, I’d ask that he consider who and where he is, what he believes, what he can do and where he comes from, and what that means for him, not only at Whitworth, but also in society as a whole.

His voice has always been heard. He is welcome at Whitworth and anywhere he goes. He has been for the longest time.


Elections are influenced by young voters

Josh Tandy

As most of you know the 2018 midterm elections are coming up in August and I see this as an opportunity for the young people of the United States. If young people in larger numbers across all parts of the country voted, this could change the course of politics in the United States.

For the 2016 presidential election, it is hard to find the exact voter turnout for people in the age range of 18-24-year-old. Various universities, such as Tufts University and Florida University, have estimates that put the voting range from around 45 percent to 50 percent. This is slightly higher than average for young voters, but this is still an abysmal showing compared to other groups that range from 57 percent all the way up to 70 percent.

Eighteen-24-year-old voters also have the ability to influence elections if they increase voting turnout. The millennial generation plus Generation Z (the generation most college students are in) are now officially bigger than baby boomers in voting population. This causes a greater ripple effect than what most people think about.

Most politicians talk about saving Medicare and Social Security when they campaign because that appeals to Baby Boomers, who vote the most. So, what would happen if more millennials and generation z started voting? We can address issues that relate more to what we care about, like the rising national debt and student loans.

In the end, it doesn’t matter who you vote for. I ultimately want to encourage you to go out to vote not just in the 2018 elections, but all of your small local elections too. Politics can make a huge impact on us and sometimes the most impactful ones are the small local elections. If 2018 can be the year of young voters proving that our votes matter maybe we could start a modern day political revolution.  

Contact Josh Tandy at jtandy21@my.whitworth.edu

ASWU does not accurately represent the student body

Abby Nye

The Associated Students of Whitworth University (ASWU) made a decision to write a resolution that would express the stance of Whitworth’s student body on supporting DACA recipients in late February. This decision was called into action by a few ASWU members. The decision was passed unanimously within ASWU. As an off-campus student, I was uninformed that this resolution would reflect the opinion of ASWU, which strives to represent the student body, according to this resolution.

Resolutions are a rare occurrence, and the ASWU bylaws give no information as to how they are passed. I would have expected this resolution about DACA to come with a more personal outreach in order to get an understanding about where all students stand, both in support and against. However, many students didn’t receive any information that this decision was being made to reflect the stance of the student body.

ASWU is made up of both elected officials and hired members. According to the job description,  Residence Hall Senators elected from each residence hall are expected to “Insure that all constituencies of the residence hall student population… are well represented and informed.” However, the ASWU bylaws state that senators and representatives are not obligated to vote according to the majority opinion of their constituents.

Many ASWU leaders have expressed liberal political and social views. To some, the passing of this resolution seemed like a part of a personal agenda.

“There are plenty of people on this campus who do not support DACA and would disagree with ASWU speaking for them or not getting their input,” said junior Ali Forbush. They have, as a result, created a leadership that appears unapproachable and biased toward their personal views.

Whitworth is a diverse campus. With this comes varying opinions, and there are many students that would disagree with the decision to support DACA. The lack of information regarding this decision seems to have intentionally overlooked students who would have disagreed. Because they are not required to vote with the opinion of their constituents, residence hall senators and representatives can carry out a leadership that doesn’t actually reflect the majority opinion. It’s difficult to express support of an opposing view because there isn’t any reward for it.

“I think that this just perpetuates the problem that many conservatives on campus feel that they cannot speak their mind to ASWU or other students because they either will not be listened to or their opinion is not valued,” Forbush said.

The lack of information regarding the passing of resolutions, and that they will reflect the opinion of the student body, brings to light the many ways that ASWU is not an accurate representation of the student body. Residence hall senators and representatives are allowed to vote in their own interest, which can easily overlook many opposing opinions. I believe these senators and representatives should be required to take their constituents opinions into account more.

A leadership that requires more outreach and better representation of all students must be put into place for all students to feel as though Whitworth reflects majority opinions. Students deserve the opportunity to be heard. They deserve the chance to speak up, and have their opinion be expressed in ASWU. It’s time for ASWU leadership to set aside their personal opinions to develop a student leadership in which all opinions can be safely expressed.

Contact Abby Nye at anye19@my.whitworth.edu


I am your equal, not subordinate

Ein Huie

It seems to me that Whitworth students could address the conversation of diversity in a different way; by teaching rather than criticizing and listening rather than being defensive. Although we say we want equality for all races and we want gender inequality to go away and everyone of all backgrounds to be at peace with each other, conversations about diversity can often deter certain people from standing up for equality. For the purpose of this article, I want to be clear that my definition of diversity encompasses race, gender, sexuality, socio-economic status and political status and not just one of these five characteristics of identity.

I am a straight, white, middle-class male. I was raised in the liberal-leaning city of Seattle in a nuclear home with two parents, a brother and a dog. With that identity one might argue that I don’t have the right to write this article, but my identity only adds to the point I am trying to express throughout this article.

Growing up, I did not have many friends from diverse backgrounds and unconsciously surrounded myself with people like me. As I entered public high school, I realized that issues of diversity were the popular topics of conversation and yet also the most debated and emotionally charged conversations. Diversity has come to be the topic that we need to talk about and yet nobody likes to for fear of being on the wrong side or feeling shut down.  Seeing as I knew very little about people different than me, I would often use the wrong terminology or make some ignorant comment about someone’s culture or sexuality. Sometimes it was received well, sometimes I was criticized for it.

Hearing “You can’t say that” and “You wouldn’t get it” or “You wouldn’t understand”, in my opinion, is not a proper response to an ignorant comment on diversity. If I do not know the correct terminology, please teach me. People who attempt to converse about race, sexuality or politics and are deemed as  ignorant, stupid, or not caring about cultural differences should have no reason to want to learn more. If our goal in this culture is to seek equality for all people, and I make a mistake because I don’t know any better, don’t criticize me, teach me. I want to learn.

This brings up another issue that I see as pertinent to this article. Just because someone is not actively seeking out information about how to converse on topics they cannot relate to does not mean they don’t want to learn. Someone who has the ability to relate to race issues or issues of sex is inherently more likely to fight for those rights because it directly affects them and they can relate to it. That does not mean that everyone else doesn’t want the same thing. Holding a bias against a straight, white person for not constantly advocating for human rights does not inherently mean that they are not interested. Don’t count them out because they cannot relate. The straight, white man that accidently makes a mistake in their terminology should not be met with criticism or “expected to say something as ignorant as that”; we need a teaching mentality.

As a generation that voices our opinions and vocally stands up for what we believe in, it is of my opinion that we need to teach more and criticize others less. An African-American person cannot change the fact that they are African-American. A gay person cannot change the fact that they are gay. And a person who grew up upper-class or in a nuclear family cannot change their socio-economic status or family life. If these people constantly hear “You wouldn’t understand”, can you really expect them to want to? Who else is going to teach them besides those who can understand and have the diverse backgrounds to relate?

I believe this goes both ways. At the end of the day, no matter what combination of diverse characteristics make up a person’s identity, there will be a time where each person will be on both sides of the conversation, those being taught and those doing the teaching. As someone who is a straight, white, middle-class male, I have my own culture that defines me too. I have parts of me that many in my diverse in-group can relate to and if we converse with those that are different than us, such as international students or immigrants, as if they will never understand because they can’t relate then we are doing them more harm than good. Using my example of an immigrant, if they were to ask me about something they didn’t understand in American culture and I told them “You just wouldn’t understand, you’re not from here”, I would give them no reason to want to learn or even stay in America and thus create a hierarchy that doesn’t treat them as equal to me. We need to focus more on teaching and worry less about changing others or giving up on someone before we try to teach them.

As a university that seeks a holistic education of mind and heart and aims to “Love God, Follow Christ, and Serve Humanity” Whitworth students need to serve humanity by teaching each other. Listen to someone’s story and put aside the biases that are  based on someone else’s identity. Ask questions and if they make a mistake or say something out of ignorance, try no to tell them that they won’t understand, instead, teach them. We can all agree that we want equality in our society so let’s start by treating each other like equals and open our hearts to teaching and learning.

Contact Ein Huie at dhuie19@my.whitworth.edu


Conservative opinions overlooked at Whitworth

Grant Langley

I am a proud conservative.  I voted for Donald Trump. I love this country and its laws.  I love guns. I am proud of my heritage. I do not support DACA.  I do not support further restrictive gun legislation. I do not support apologizing for my race.

I attend a school that proclaims and supposedly relishes in diversity yet cannot conceive nor respect the fact that there are many students who have different political views than those in leadership.  And I’m not just talking about students here. Some of the professors reading this are to blame as well with their quips and “coincidental examples” on the Trump presidency, guns, DACA, and racial tension.

Having talked to many other conservatives on campus, we feel our opinions and values are not held to the same standard as those of our peers because we are the minority and many of us are not willing to cause commotion to get ourselves heard.  I am exhausted of it being assumed that I support everything preached and taught at this school just because it is popular or the “right” thing to do.

For example, just because I am a Christian and have compassion for my fellow man does not mean I deem “justice” as being in favor of DACA as it is preached in chapel; just because I mourn for those lost and affected by school shootings does not mean I am going to forfeit my lawful right to own firearms; just because I detest socioeconomic and racial discrimination does not mean I am sorry for being a middle-class, caucasian male.  

But do I say anything?  Rarely, because I’m not the sort to openly lament and complain until I am catered to.  It just isn’t worth my time. No, I am not going to disrespect my professor and disrupt the education of my peers by walking out of a classroom in the middle of their lecture to make a “non-political” political statement out of the deaths of those seventeen students and faculty killed that fateful day in Parkland, Florida.  I also don’t need to be told that what I believe in is wrong when I did not ask for an unwelcome opinion in the first place.

I do understand that we are living in a very politically-charged time, where middle ground can be found few and far between.  However, I am not asking you to think the way I think nor am I asking you to back down from what you believe in; I am simply asking for a little consideration next time you decide to voice your “anti-Trump” or similar  opinion in class or try to criticize my way of life and thinking. I am calling on all of us, not just those who disagree with me, to act out of courtesy and thoughtfulness, not just on this campus, but in our communities back home and adventures abroad.  Everyone deserves to have their voice heard and opinion respected.

Contact Grant Langely at glangley20@my.whitworth.edu



It's time for Saga to quiet down


Ein Huie

Let me begin by saying that this article is long overdue. I apologize for the tardiness but the message I am about to convey is in need of serious attention as it affects the daily lives of many students on campus.  I do not mean to attack people directly in this article, but I aim to share an opinion, held by many, in the Whitworth community that Saga is not the place to be loud.

Picture yourself on a “good” day. You wake up and the sun is out. You are feeling good about your classes and about how you did on yesterday’s test. Lunchtime rolls around for you and so you decide to head to Saga because a) you are hungry, and b) you heard that they are serving quesadillas, three styles of lasagna and Sodexo’s best: orange chicken. You and your friends find a place to sit and begin having a pleasant conversation about the sun and your weekend plans of hiking and going to nearby coffee shops when out of nowhere someone yells goodbye to their friend across the entire dining hall.

What are you feeling?

Although you may have thought it was funny or shrugged it off the first few times, what about when it happens for every lunch and every dinner you innocently attend in Saga? And remember, that was you on a “good” day; imagine yourself on a snowy day or after you found out you failed your test – now how do you feel? The part of this scenario that is most compelling is the reality of the experience: you don’t have to imagine it - you experience it almost every day and every meal. There is simply no need for any of this noise: it is annoying, it is unnecessary, and it does nothing but put everyone else’s conversations on hold so that the loud people can be annoying. News flash: it’s not all about you.

Students and faculty and touring visitors come to eat in Saga to get a taste of Whitworth, enjoy the company of their friends, and get a quick, uninterrupted bite to eat and head to the next stressful class or test. Saga is meant to be a peaceful community within the Whitworth community that calls for an average volume of noise, respect for the needs and wants of others and not obnoxious noise or yelling across the cafeteria. Yelling and laughing loudly is ridiculous and only seeks personal attention that makes everyone negatively view those being loud.

For those of you reading this who are the loud ones, please stop. Have you ever taken into account the idea that others want to enjoy their conversations without you always yelling or drawing attention to yourself? There are places all around campus for being loud. The Loop or anywhere outside is a wonderful place to test your vocals and be obnoxious to unknowing passersby. Anywhere off campus works well too. Even your room or the Back 40 is a wonderful place for loud handshakes and laughing until you run out of breath. Once again, please stop. You are respected as a person and as an individual but Saga is not the place for you as a loud person to exercise the extent to how loud you can be.

Contact Ein Huie at dhuie19@my.whitworth.edu


Gossip Squirrel: Where do you draw the line?

Ein Huie

You all know the name. @whitworth_gossip_squirrel has about 1,100 followers on Instagram and has been a point of humor and contention over the past year. This anonymous account posts pictures a few times a week and has a wide range of locations and people throughout Whitworth’s campus they post about. There are many mysterious things involved in this account, but one of the biggest questions that has come up with this account is in relation to its owner. Though we may never answer the question of who it is, I would ask the question, “Should someone have that much power?”

For many of the early posts, Gossip Squirrel commented on any interaction on campus that they thought was appealing and could be appealing to others on campus. Oftentimes, actual names of the people in the photos were used. For example, two people casually having a conversation and laughing about it starts out as an innocent, platonic conversation, but once a photo is taken and a caption is thrown on, now the two people seem to be flirting with each other or they are in an argument. This twist on an innocent interaction can lead to rumors that cycle back to these people and assumptions get made. This is too much power for one person to wield.

A few months ago, the account was forced to remove one of its photos. At Midnight Madness, Gossip Squirrel took a photo of one of our leading basketball scorers and added a caption to it that ran something along the lines of the unnamed basketball player being in the spotlight “where he belongs” and that he seeks attention etc. This player commented back saying, “I don’t know what I did to deserve this, but okay…” and the post got taken down within a day or two. There were many other comments that supported the basketball player and put down gossip squirrel instead. The person behind this account was using their dislike of the basketball player to fuel their post and attacked a Whitworth student directly as an attention-seeking and prideful athlete. This is not the only offensive post this anonymous student account has posted. Earlier in February, a photo of a Whitworth professor in her convocation robes was posted with the caption, “Spotted: Someone who paid thousands of dollars to look like a bumble bee.”

Many of these posts have dark or sarcastic captions directed at a certain person or group. These captions often seem to assume the worst of people as a joke, and yet oftentimes it is not taken that way by its followers and can just come across hurtful or simply confusing. Again, I ask, where do you draw the line as someone who has enough power to tear down a student or start unwanted rumors for one or more people? Is it okay if we as followers just flag what we can after the post has been made? The difference between this account and other accounts on Instagram is the fact that this person remains anonymous and cannot be held personally responsible for anything they write or post. Sure, this happens on the public web, but the fact that this account is only seen by Whitworth students makes it much more of a relevant attack on the person being posted about because many people at Whitworth will know them or quickly figure out who it is.

So what do we do? An anonymous account at Whitworth University cannot abuse its power by calling out individual students and making fun of them or tearing them down. If they do so, the account needs to be taken away from them. If the person behind the gossip squirrel account can’t be respectful of the Whitworth community, someone else can and will. And many other anonymous accounts have been created as well since then that are very amusing to follow. Some of these include, and I would encourage you to check these out: @becktaylormemes, @whitworth_exposed, @whitworthmeninscarves, @whitworth_history, @whitworthcelebs, @feetofwhitworth, @whitworth_university_official, and @whitworth_secrets.

Contact Ein Huie at dhuie19@my.whitworth.edu


Gun control is only a part of the solution

Abby Nye

On February 14, 2018, 17 students were killed and 15 were injured in a shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Since then, students who had experienced this shooting first hand have spoken up about gun control laws in the United States. “The tragedy at Stoneman Douglas was not because of Stoneman Douglas. It was because people like (shooter) Nik–Nikolas Cruz were able to buy these weapons,” student Cameron Kasky said to “Meet the Press.” Mass shootings have become somewhat commonplace in America recently, and this particular shooting has incited more activism than before. Students, teachers, politicians, and even celebrities have added their views into the mix, which has resulted in a national discussion on what we should do about gun control laws.

I believe that having access to such deadly weapons as the .223-caliber AR-15 should not be available to any citizen who has not undergone extensive weapon safety classes, training, and psychological evaluations. However, I do not believe that access to this weapon was what caused this mass shooting, nor do I believe that this causes any mass shooting. I believe that the real reason these mass shootings continue to plague our country is because we create such a media storm around it. Like horror movies, we are captivated by disturbing behavior and can’t stop watching.

The increased use of social media in events like mass shootings extends the availability of information. Young people may see this sort of news coverage and misunderstand the severity of the issue. The public is exposed to news articles again and again that show mourning families, the closed-down school, and the masses of people that come to pay respects. It’s an image of great influence that one person had over so many people. It may be triggering to see these images and desire to have that sort of influence over people. All it took in many instances was a weapon readily available, and a public place.

Instead of the constant media coverage of mass shootings, a more laid-back approach would limit the exposure of these horrific events to the public. This media coverage shows the influence and power of a shooter who may have felt powerless. Although it is our right as the public to know what is happening in our country and world, we need to take into effect the power of media.

News coverage should center around healthy growth and development of people, teaching us how to respond to mental health crises or to look out for signs of depression and other psychological disorders, and what to do if we notice one. If we are more informed in this aspect, we can watch out carefully for our neighbors and peers, looking to help all those around us find a place of peace and health. We do not need to wonder if the schools are safe for our children if we look to the world to find the warning signs before they become problems on a larger scale. Guns may be the weapon of choice, but it is our awareness of our peers that will help us to develop a more psychologically healthy society.

Contact Abby Nye at anye19@my.whitworth.edu



Illegal immigration must be reviewed

Josh Tandy

DACA, which stands for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, is one of the most
complicated issues that affects us as a student body and a university. I believe we need to help
the undocumented people who are already in this country, but at some point, we need to crack
down on illegal immigration, so we don’t have more people flooding in and taking the
opportunities that would otherwise go to people who legally immigrated here or were born here.

DACA began in 1996. Former President Bill Clinton passed The Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act into law. This made it next to impossible for illegal aliens and
their children to get legal status. This policy, like most other government policies, didn’t go
according to plan. To fix that in 2001, The DREAM Act was introduced, and it would give
children of illegal immigrants otherwise known as DREAMers a pathway to citizenship. In 2012,
Congress was still stalling on the DREAM Act, so Former President Barack Obama created
DACA. DACA doesn’t give these children a path to citizenship, but it does protect them from
deportation, allows them to work and go to college in the US.

I have met people here that have received help from DACA and I sympathize with their
situation. Ultimately, they didn’t ask to be in this situation. It would be great if there was an easy
path to citizenship for these students, but this is just one of the many issues that effects our
immigration system. We need to help the undocumented persons who are already here, but we
need to stop helping illegal immigrants at some point. Otherwise, we are going to have even
more people crossing over the border who would take opportunities that would normally go to
someone already here. As a University, we should encourage undocumented students that are
already here to stay and help them in any way that we can, such as financially. However, in the not
too distant future we need to work and help the bright students that are citizens of the United
States first. In the future, if we want to continue to be the land of second chances, we need to
focus on helping the people in need already here.

Contact Josh Tandy at jtandy21@my.whitworth.edu