Colleges in Poor Economic Times: Where Does Calvin Fall?
Upon recommendation of one of my teachers to read the New York Times, I get the headlines sent to my email every day. Usually I read the headlines if nothing else. I realize that’s sort of cheating… but that’s not my point. Today I actually read a number of articles, one of which caught my attention because it concerned a college from my home state of Oregon: Reed College. I’ve been to Reed a number of times, often for Latin gatherings, and it is well-known for both its academic rigour and anti-Christianity, despite being “free-spirited.” This article talked about how Reed had to pick students they thought were less qualified to be admitted because they had more money and could pay their way. No longer was the choice about only merit. Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10reed.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th.
Within that article was a link to another article on the word “climbing walls.” The article was talking about how colleges were in the business of meeting consumer needs, although Reed was trying to resist that, because as Reed’s president put nicely, “The whole point of higher education is we know something you don’t.” It’s not supposed to be about what the consumers have claimed they want so you give it to them. You offer them something that they don’t have and inspire them to want it: education. Maybe that’s too idealistic: maybe nowadays education is not attractive enough for people. People were once concerned with things like duty and honor but now are only interested in fulfilling their wants and their self-seeking: like the Dursleys from Harry Potter. (Thanks to Mr. Plato for making that connection so brilliantly: Voldemort is certainly evil. But so are the Dursleys, and they are the ones that we could easily become if we aren’t careful). Here’s the article I read about consumerism in universities: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/us/jacuzzi-u-a-battle-of-perks-to-lure-students.html.
So with these two things in mind, where does my own university fall? It has recently made a huge sports complex, undoubtedly for the sake of having a perk that attracts mainly athletes. I think if a vote had been taken with all the Calvin community as to whether that was a good idea or not… well those who weren’t excited about it might be in the minority, but they would at least be well-represented. But, what’s done is done. What’s next for Calvin is renovating the Fine Arts Center. New classrooms, and better facilities for music and other fine arts. That, I certainly approve of for its educational value, perhaps because one of my majors (English) is one of the departments being renovated. And, to be fair, I do appreciate Calvin’s understanding that we are embodied creatures and our bodies are important, unlike the Christian strain that is so platonic and only focused on our soul(er, form) that will one day be freed from our body and will get to go to heaven. Christ said the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand! It is here, but not yet- but even when it is fully here, it will be a physical kingdom, not simply spiritual. But forgive me; I’ve run off on a non-related tangent. I just hope Calvin does not fall prey to the patterns and habits of educational institutions in the world, and instead holds to a more Christian understanding of what it means to run an institution. That’s a hard balance, and I wouldn’t suggest that I would do any better. But I do hope that it is at least continually thought about.
Wall-E: A Movie Review
Wall-E repelled me from the start. The previews convinced me the makers of Pixar were going to make yet another movie about robots, and as opposed to the more critical (and I think accurate) accounts such as “I, Robot” and “A.I.” and others that show the negative affects of a world inhabited by robots, I thought this one was going to be about how good they were.
And it was… to a certain extent. Just as I was afraid they were going to do, since the main characters are robots, they used movie-making and story-telling magic (often through humor) to emotionally attach the audience to Wall-E and Eva. Wall-E’s eclectic-ness and
love of beauty showed him to be more “humane” than one would expect from a robot, and it is subtly implied that that is what has kept him alive, since all the other Wall-Es have “died.” Eva could be described (in human terms) as a B.A.– ready to shoot anything that seems like a threat or even an inconvenience or annoyance.
Yet… ultimately, despite all my criticisms of the movie, it was a work in anthropology, trying to decide what it means to be human. And surprisingly to me, they encountered consumerism quite profoundly in the movie. Consumerism was seen to be a huge problem– the premise of why Wall-E is by himself on earth is because the humans filled it up with so much trash it was no longer liveable. So, they go off to space to live while the Wall-Es (which stands for “Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class”) clean up the mess they left behind. The original people intend to come back once earth is cleaned up enough that life can live, but for hundreds of years that is not the case. So instead, their space ship becomes something extremely and eerily similar to “A Brave New World”– people who can do whatever they want, consume as much as they want, and in that way find their happiness. And on that line of exciting consumerism, I recently found out that EVA is designed by Apple. 
The captain, which is one of the three humans who begins to return to what it means to be human, specifically by being honorable and virtuous, says a profound line when the robot who is controlling the ship tells him they cannot return to earth. “You will survive here,” the robot tells him. “I don’t want to survive,” the captain says passionately, “I want to live!” Two other passengers, with Wall-E’s help, discover a world outside of their TV screen, a world of beauty. The space outside their windows, the pool that no one swims in, etc… and then ultimately, through human touch, each other.
It is not really clear (possibly because it is chiefly a children’s movie) how reproduction happens on this ship. Children are kept in separate quarters from the others, cared for by robots, and again it is a sense of Brave New World. The captain asks the control robot for statistics at the beginning of the day and is told there is no more human count. Death is not discussed, but there is talk of “ancestors” so even though they have found out how to live happily with no worries, it is not an eternal life. Obesity plays a large part in relation to consumerism as well.
My frustration with the movie is that although they brought out all these criticisms, the solution seemed extremely unreal. The ship defeats the “evil robot” (which is another discussion that could be had- some robots are essentially good, while others are not. How did that happen? A discussion of Frankenstein might be in order for that), and then returns to earth with a green shoot that miraculously survives quite a beating. The captain somehow had water on his ship, although all other water sources seemed to have disappeared on earth, and they have been in space for 700 years. Then the humans take that one shoot of green and manage to reproduce it into lots and lots of greenery.
Which on the one hand, is extremely profound. Wendell Berry might be excited, that farming is put in such a positive light, and that the humans’ personal relationship with the earth is what allows them to live instead of surviving in a consumerism theme park. But, possibly because its supposed to be a side-plot anyway, and the real story is the romantic relationship between two robots, their lives are way to easily, sometimes at the assumption that the technology and robots helped make it that way (even though that sort of lifestyle is what led to the hyper-consumerism in the first place).
However, with all that said, it is a great movie about what it means to be human, and what our relationship with the earth should be. And, it is fantastic that such a seemingly silly movie can have such profound implications.

