I was thinking this afternoon that there are probably very few things that bother me much about DBU so much. Of course I rant and rave these days at question 16 on the evaluation forms(does the professor use a variety of instructional techniques?) on the evaluation forms, but I think I’m just expressing old hurts and old anger in new ways. If I’m right, I’m only fooling myself. Best to deal with the old things. So here I am, dealing with it in the best way I know how.

It’s hard to know what actually goes on, because my experiences is so subjective. To summarize somewhat, from SWAT week (oh, what horror) to Foundations for Excellence to chapel to just a few of the lower level courses (why do the history classes give out the test questions before the test, on multiple choice?) my intelligence was insulted right and left at DBU my first year here, and a little bit afterwards.

Dr. Matos and Dr. Shelton were glorious exceptions. Dr. Naugle appeared as a breath of fresh air. I adore our professors (except one; find the comments about him). The exhortation to learn and be all I can be is wonderful. One feels so respected when one is expected to do his duty.

This leads to two problems. NUMBER ONE, are DBU professors and DBU SWAT Week/chapel/Foundations/some lower level courses really two different DBUs? Perhaps only to preserve my sanity, I usually say “yes.” It’s so much harder to admit that maybe they both represent the same human institution, simultaneously replete with sin and goodness. Maybe I should admit that; on the other hand, if Dr. Naugle’s principles (education/liberal arts education, using the mind to the glory of God, integrating the scattered pieces of life into one great Christian whole; oh, and don’t forget one of Dr. Bell’s principles: good theology) so often seem to be directly antithetical to SWAT Week, chapel, Foundations, the dualism I've seen in the administration, and the rest, what else can I say but that there are two DBUs?

NUMBER TWO, I so often have been asked to consider the younger people who haven’t been given what I’ve been given? It’s a darned good thing for me to consider, but I have. Sure, it makes some difference. And I guess we do have to consider everyone, not just the several-years-Christians. But if chapel is always an insult to my intelligence, aren’t we considering only the uneducated? And furthermore, aren’t we keeping them that way?

Sure, not everyone had what I had when they were coming into their freshman year of college. But for heaven’s sake, don’t miss my point. My point is not that I was insulted. My point is not that everyone could have handled the sort of intellectual nourishment I wanted. Not everyone could have.

My point is that this level of infantile teaching was not necessary. My point is that all of us could have handled something more. Something much, much more. When we skip the foundation (Jesus is King, read the Bible, and pray) and go on to the very basics, from which we go . . . back to the basics without going to the foundation . . . can’t we handle something more?

Do we really need to be entertained at SWAT week instead of told to pursue a relationship with God at college by reading the excellent letter God wrote us? Told to pursue a relationship with God at chapel instead of told what God told us?

So that’s it, grossly summarized. You can take it as you like it; I’m an American; I want you to do so; you’re free citizens, dangit. But that’s how I feel, and I’ve given you a couple of reasons to think maybe it really does belong in the “Absolute Truth” section of the DBU Snipe site.