Search News


Browse Archives

News

Free Speech at Dartmouth

September 29, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Noah Riner wanted to stir up Dartmouth College students with his speech at a convocation ceremony last week suggesting that students' character matters just as much as their intelligence and their talents, and that the college pays too little attention to that aspect of their development. 

And stir them up he did, although not exactly in the way he'd hoped: His focus on the redemptive power of Jesus Christ provoked criticism that he had misused a speaking opportunity he earned by being student body president to proselytize to a captive audience. The incident has spurred renewed discussion at Dartmouth (and in the blogosphere) about free speech and the receptivity of Dartmouth students and others to diverse -- especially "conservative" -- viewpoints.

Each year, the president of Dartmouth's Student Assembly has the honor of delivering a speech at the convocation, the formal opening of the academic year and an event specifically designed to welcome incoming freshmen. Dartmouth's president also speaks -- this year, James Wright, urged students to understand how privileged they are and to use their good fortune to improve the world -- and in his or her 3-5 minutes, the assembly president is encouraged not to lay out an agenda for the student government but to aim higher and broader. 

Dartmouth, Riner told his peers, has turned out many very special people -- and many corrupt ones, too, he said, launching into a list of examples, historical and recent, of alums and bad citizens: a Soviet spy, a murderer, a history teacher who sexually assaulted a 15-year-old student.

Lack of character is everywhere, he said -- among the looters in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and in "all of us." "Character is what you do when no one is looking, but I'm afraid to say all the things I've done when no one was looking," Riner said. "Let's be honest, the differences are in degree. We have the same flaws as the individuals who pillaged New Orleans. Ours haven't been given such free range, but they exist and are part of us all the same."

Then Riner invoked Christ. Jesus, he said, "is the solution to flawed people like corrupt Dartmouth alums, looters, and me." "Jesus' message of redemption is simple. People are imperfect, and there are consequences for our actions. He gave His life for our sin so that we wouldn't have to bear the penalty of the law; so we could see love. The problem is me; the solution is God's love: Jesus on the cross, for us."

Riner's point, in closing, was that students should focus on more than achievement while at Dartmouth. "As you begin your four years here, you've got to come to some conclusions about your own character because you won't get it by just going to class. What is the content of your character? Who are you? And how will you become what you need to be?"

The reaction was swift. The next day, the Student Assembly's vice president of student life, Kaelin Goulet, resigned her position in protest. In an e-mail message reported by The Dartmouth, the student newspaper, she called "his choice of topic for the convocation speech reprehensible and an abuse of power." And in her letter of resignation to Riner, who had chosen her for the position, she wrote: "Your first opportunity to represent Student Assembly to the incoming freshmen was appalling. You embarrass the organization; you embarrass yourself." 

Students from a range of perspectives chimed in on the student paper's op-ed pages. One junior wrote that "it is truly a shame when a Dartmouth student can no longer express his or her moral convictions without bringing down a sea of criticism and censure upon themselves. In a world where moral relativism has become the norm, even the expected attitude, it is very refreshing to see and hear a fellow student express their convictions in a forthright and uncompromising manner."

Leaders of the campus Jewish and Hindu groups complained that Riner had implied that "all of us should look to Jesus as our Savior... Invoking imagery of the cross, using the word 'us,' but not me -- these are inappropriate for a speech opening the new school year and welcoming all students."

Another Jewish student weighed in on behalf of Riner's First Amendment rights, saying that "while his speech may have been preachy, he certainly has the right to make his point."

The newspaper's own editorial board argued that Riner had undercut his overall message by focusing on Jesus as the "only way to find character." "Riner had every right, as a member of a community that values the freedom of speech, to speak freely about what matters to him," The Dartmouth editors wrote. "The forum he chose, however, was inappropriate. By preaching his faith from a commandeered pulpit, Riner weakened the more important message of his speech -- the need to develop personal character while at Dartmouth."

(A student cartoonist generated some controversy of his own with a drawing in which Jesus urges a fire-and-brimstone spewing Riner to "chill out" and offers him a joint.)

In an interview, Riner, a senior who majors in history and government, said that in preparing for the speech, he read the remarks delivered by his last six presidential predecessors and found that while the content varied, they generally "spoke about who they are from their own perspective," and were often "very personal in ideology and opinions" (two years ago, he said, the assembly president discussed the legalization of marijuana). 

"My goals were to challenge and inspire students and specifically to make them think deeply about character," he said. "And for me, Jesus is a natural figure to bring up when talking about character."

Riner said he knew that doing so would provoke some response -- "Dartmouth is a very diverse place, and for almost any opinion that one can hold, there'll be some one on the campus who holds a different view -- but that the breadth and depth of the reaction has surprised him. "I hoped that people would discuss issues of character coming out of the speech. People do seem to be thinking about character a little more, and whether that's agreeing with me or disagreeing with me, that's still a good thing."

On a campus that has sometimes been accused by conservative alumni of shunning non-liberal points of view, a controversy like this one might be expected to bring out the college's external critics like dogs to raw meat. But Dartmouth officials are staying on the sidelines in this dispute -- "the speech and the dialogue following it show that free speech is clearly alive and well at Dartmouth. The administration applauds the responsible ways in which students have addressed this important matter," said William N. Walker, the college's chief spokesman -- and Riner says the criticism he's faced is a credit to Dartmouth and its students, not a condemnation of them.

"This proves that Dartmouth students are very engaging and they want to consider and challenge ideas," Riner said. "They want their views to be heard, but they're willing to grapple with all sorts of viewpoints."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Free Speech at Dartmouth

  • Why is this free speech?
  • Posted by P on September 29, 2005 at 9:23am EDT
  • I still don't understand why the headline on this story referred to free speech. No government (nor even a private college) prevented Riner from saying what he wanted, nor even claimed that he couldn't say whatever he wanted. People are speaking up in response because Riner chose his topic and his words poorly.

  • So What?
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on September 29, 2005 at 10:07am EDT
  • I fail to see anything wrong with this turn of events. The student was asked to share his feelings, and he did just that. If interreligious dialog or for that manner expression cannot occur without someone running home screaming about being offended, then I think we would be better off with them offended than the speech suppressed. If there are students who are so immature that they cannot hear from any religious viewpoint different from their own without feeling compelled to protest, we must be careful not to hand the reigns to them.

  • Posted by Tim Saxon , Associate Professor of History at Liberty University on September 29, 2005 at 10:07am EDT
  • I find it somewhat strange to hear someone say that this young man didn't choose his words wisely. The point of an open forum and free speech is that we are allowed to express not only ideas, but also motives that compel us to speak. Why is a message about character based upon Christian belief so objectionable? Would a similar speech from a Muslim or Hindu Student Assembly President have provoked such an uproar on Dartmouth? I make it a point to read ideas with which I disagree, even as a Christian at a Christian university. That's what's so wonderful about the web; publications of a great variety populate the world for us all to read and struggle to understand.

    As far as intolerance goes, given that Hindus regularly burn down churches in India and Muslims kill Christians with impunity (Ask my brother about a Russian Christian family murdered by Muslims in that country - father, mother, and three children - two of whom were my brother's godchildren), there are degrees of intolerance that far surpass that of a Christian speaking about character to a "captive audience." Did anyone walk out, as was their right, and return after the speaker had finished? Did Dartmouth punish anyone who didn't go to the assembly or stay throughout it?

  • Posted by Patrick , Critics, not speaker, disgraced themselves on September 29, 2005 at 10:32am EDT
  • What a sad, even shameful commentary, on the state of discourse in our country. The message was simple, inspired, and hopeful. It was one of redemption. It was a speech which challenged the audience to find the courage to do what is right even "when no one is looking." The speaker did not attempt to convert non-believers to Christianity but used the example of Christ as a call to others to be mindful of the greater good and deny the sinful nature which is inherent in all of us. Even if you do not believe in Christ, could you not see the value of the message? In my mind, the hateful, malicious response towards this young man exemplified the exact behavior we should refrain from engaging in. I may not agree with a Buddihist or Hindu view of humanity or the afterlife but I can always appreciate genuine concern for peace, goodwill, tolerance, and generosity. It is a shame that others have so imbibed themselves in anti-religious liberalism that they cannot.

  • Just a Question
  • Posted by Meghan , Chair at Boston Intercollegiate Government on September 29, 2005 at 10:56am EDT
  • Nowadays, especially as students we are taught that it we need to be open and accepting to all people and all ways of thinking. Somehow this doesn't apply to Christianity. Somehow, it is acceptable to to be closeminded when it comes to people who try to share their faith, if it happens to be Christianity, but not if its anything else. Why is Christianity judged differently? Its like "all religions are equal, but some religions are more equal than others." It seems to be that the people that claim to be tolerant are in fact not tolerant at all. Most Christians I know are more open to listening to other viewpoints and discussing other ways of thinging than any non-Christian I have met has ever been about Christianity. In this culture of Intellectualism that pervades our universities, it is no longer about creative thought, but about accepting liberal ideology and calling it creative thought. What happenned to two sides to every argument? When did conservatives become considered by mainstream academia to become somehow lesser, or ignorant to belive as they do? I just find it interesting that had he just talked about character and left out Jesus, or even talked a little about Buddism, everyone would have been fine, but no, he had to go and use the "J" word and now everybody is mad.

  • Protest Too Much
  • Posted by Dan on September 29, 2005 at 1:38pm EDT
  • I am a believer in Christ's teachings, they are powerful and can build character. But my fellow Christians always protest too much. As previous writers noted, Riner was given free reign to speak however he wished.
    I dont agree he chose his topics and words poorly. But why would offering an opposing viewpoint or feeling compelled to protest make someone immature? Certainly the points about others atrocities are simply straw man arguments. Which response could be truly characterized as malicious? And everyone mad? I read a variety of responses to Riners comments, thoughtful and not.

    What do I always remember as a Christian? We are not persecuted in this country. Its ludicrous to think so, Christians are the dominant group in power. With that comes a responsibilty to listen to others, to understand they may not share your view, even as you explain the power of Christs message. It is truly amazing that in his time Christ could send a message of love and forgiveness, he was at the bottom of the pyramid. Those of you who protest cause your sensibilities are offended by those who didnt agree with Riner should consider Christ's teachings more closely. In fact I bet Noah Riner could help you.

  • Posted by Jenna , Assistant Prof.--Humanities at Allegany College of Maryland on September 29, 2005 at 1:42pm EDT
  • He is a representative of the student body, and while his choice of words was not representative of the whole body, it is unfortunate that his overall message, one of character and integrity, was not the focus of the speech. By the way, did anyone else find the cartoon offensive? Wow.

  • Think first, talk second
  • Posted by Rosemary on September 29, 2005 at 1:58pm EDT
  • Riner could have solved his problem with a very simple addition to his speech--acknowledging that Jesus was his personal icon, but that other students who come with different faiths, including agnostics and atheists, may have other role models. His purpose was to move students toward character development, not just acquisition of learning and/or power, but he failed to put himself in the position of those who do not share his personal beliefs and background. He "embarrassed himself" in the sense that one might expect a Dartmouth senior to be a bit more alert to such differences.

  • the Jesus talk
  • Posted by DM Scott , Independent Scholar on September 29, 2005 at 3:53pm EDT
  • Amen, Rosemary.

  • Posted by Richard , Professor on September 29, 2005 at 5:29pm EDT
  • Noah was correct in his statements. He gave the audience very sound and valuable advice. He is a voice of reason and wisdom. I salute him for his stand.

  • Posted by Louis William Rose on September 29, 2005 at 5:30pm EDT
  • Of course there are many people who hate the name of Jesus Christ with a hateful hate. After all, if what the young man is saying is true, then they need to fall down on their knees in tearful repentence. Who wants to have to do that?

    If there is enough opposition available, surely they can mount a recall or impeachment and kick his behind out.

    Or maybe there happens to be a majority who wants to keep him in office.

    It is important to be sensitive to others feelings, especially when you are in an elected office. On the other hand everyone has a responsibility to speak the truth when and where it will do the most good.

  • Many have missed the boat
  • Posted by Patrick on September 30, 2005 at 6:04am EDT
  • Many of you have missed the boat here. You have a very good understanding of Christinaity Dan but it doesn't sound like you read the same article I did. Being Christian allows for tolerance and divergence of thought. I hope I made that clear in my prior post. What you apprarently did not read from this article--and I believe I am correct in stating this--is that Riner's critics were so outraged by the mere mention of Christ that they felt the need to resign in protest, publish cartoons depicting him as a fire-breather, and claim that he embarassed himself, his position, even th institution. Are any of these behaviors really Christian either? What about his speech was so offensive that he be characterized so? In my estimation, nothing. He simply discussed a topic that many people are uncomfortable with for varying reasons. Criticizing Riner, or Christ himself for that matter, does not offend me. This is, after all, a pluralist society where we are not simply free to, but encouraged to voice our opinions. I can accept that of others and expect to be offered the same courtesy without feeling the need, as some have suggested here, to apologize for the possibility that my non-threatening but opinionated speech which contains no hint of condescension, merely personal belief, may offend you by the mere mention of the name of a man in whom you may not personally believe to be your Savior. My parents told me a long time ago that sometimes in life people say things you don't agree with and they have every right to. If they're not attacking you personally, grow up and let it go. Good advice!

  • Reverse the tables
  • Posted by T , It was offensive on September 30, 2005 at 9:16am EDT
  • I'm sure if he had said Mohammed or some other non-Christian figure and said that the student body should strive to emulate him, this conversation would not be going this way...

    If he had a message about character that would be one thing, but frankly telling people to be like Christ is proselytizing. People who don't understand this didn't have the "pleasure" of growing up non-Christian. It is a far more oppressive culture in this country than you would understand.

  • Why his choice of words was impolitic
  • Posted by P on September 30, 2005 at 9:21am EDT
  • People ask "Why is a message about character based upon Christian belief so objectionable?"

    The answer is that it would not be, if that is what it were. It is appropriate for Riner to refer to Christ or other inspiring figures and give reasons why they are inspiring -- proving, or at least making the case, that they are exemplars.

    But he did not do this. Unwisely, he assumed that all the members of his audience shared his belief in a certain strain of Protestant Christianity:

    "He gave His life for our sin so that we wouldn’t have to bear the penalty of the law; so we could see love. The problem is me; the solution is God’s love: Jesus on the cross, for us.”

    Riner seemed oddly (and unbelievably) unaware that his beliefs, however firmly he holds them, are tenuous, based on mere faith, not universally held, not accepted as fact, and certainly not beliefs that he could assume would be found in more than a small percentage of his Ivy League audience. He knew better, but he claimed (it appears arrogantly) to assume that he was speaking to a Christian audience.

    Can't you tell the difference between prescription and description? Even if you personally believe that Jesus gave His life for our sins, if you were explaining the idea to non-Christians, would you ever say "we" and "us" without couching it in terms of belief, an acknowledgment that you do not expect the user also to believe in the supernatural or your particular brand of religion? "Some people think..." or "It is a tenet of Christianity that..." or "My personal philosophy, which I offer for your consideration, is..."

    The self-important arrogance of the belief that Jesus gave His life for the sins of non-Christians and the assumption of that belief in a speech to non-Christians is akin to the arrogance of the missionary.

  • Noah Riner
  • Posted by Dodge Johnson on September 30, 2005 at 10:07am EDT
  • Right on, Noah.

    I may or may not share your religious beliefs, but I sure agree with your point that character matters. And having been invited to speak, you are within your rights to say what you thought was important for an entering class to hear.

    If it's any consolation, you have support from Philip Sidney, in his gold-standard statement on the liberal arts, the Defense of Poesy (1595).

    He worried that "the astronomer looking to the stars might fall into a ditch, that the inquiring philosopher might be blind in himself, and that the mathemetician might draw forth a straight line with a crooked heart."

  • From a certain point of view
  • Posted by Michael E. Lopez on September 30, 2005 at 12:18pm EDT
  • One thing bears keeping in mind about all of this. Riner, discussing *character*, apparently said that Jesus died for "our" sins... he was up there on the cross "for us." People have been in relative agreement that this is the most "offensive" part of his speech.

    Yet, viewed in the context of what he was saying, this can be seen both as an expression of universal truth (as in it's come to jesus time) and an expression of Jesus' subjective intent and expectations. Think about it for a second.

    Jesus probably honestly thought he was dying not just for the people alive then, but for all the people who would come after him. He was dying *for all of us*, whether we appreciate his gesture or not. Whether his death was futile or the result of delusions is another point entirely. What matters is his selflessness, and hsi devotion to the good of mankind.

    In a speech about character, noting that someone faced the worst possible death (aside maybe from being cooked alive) out of a geniune belief that he was helping thousands, even millions of people he'd never met -- which according to said person's belief systems included the people in that auditorium -- is hardly out of line.

    Now, if he had said "Welcome to Dartmouth. Repent ye sinners, or burn in hell..." that might be a little different. But the intention of Jesus' death is what makes for such strong character -- at least from a certain point of view. It would not have been an effective illustration in his speech had he not mentioned that Jesus died FOR ALL OF US. Maybe he could have said "Jesus died believing that he did so for all of us..." but that hardly has the same impact.

    -Michael E. Lopez

  • Actual wording
  • Posted by Alex , Student in limbo on September 30, 2005 at 12:50pm EDT
  • Does anyone know of a link to a transcript of the speech?

  • Riner's speech
  • Posted by Doug Lederman on September 30, 2005 at 1:07pm EDT
  • It was linked to in the text of the article, but here it is again: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2005/09/20c.html

    Doug Lederman
    Inside Higher Ed

  • Personal Opinion
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on September 30, 2005 at 1:08pm EDT
  • I think it is clear from the context that the speech is his personal belief, and that it is imposed on no one. He expressed his belief that Jesus died for everyone and that if we all believed that, we would be better off. The point isn't whether or not there were other opinions - he was called upon to talk about his own opinions and experiance, and did exactly that. No says that others experiances are being supressed - he just spoke of his.

  • Wrong?
  • Posted by Ashley Blomquist on September 30, 2005 at 8:12pm EDT
  • Since when did a student, with the tenacity and soundness of mind to stand in front of a group of his own peers promoting goodness and personal character, become wrong? In a world where everyone stands for something and no one stands for anything it is refreshing to see a leader willing to take a position championing uprightness and moral accountability. Mr. Riner was challenging the Dartmouth student to do more than learn during his or her four years, but to be—to be all that he or she was meant to become. Often we are not aware of who we are or are not until we look into the face of another. To present the face of Christ as a cornerstone of reference and truth is not wrong…it is revealing.

  • It was proselytizing
  • Posted by Cathy Young at Reason Magazine on September 30, 2005 at 9:36pm EDT
  • I totally agree with Rosemary and P. Noah Riner was not just stating his personal belief; he repeatedly used the word "we." He was either proselytizing or assuming he spoke to an entirely Christian audience. Either way, this is unacceptable for a student assumbly president addressing the entire (religiously diverse) student body at an official ceremony.

    Put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Suppose Riner had been an atheist who used his address at convocation to declare that "we don't need the comforting illusion of God in our lives" and that true strength of character lies in behaving morally without divine guidance and without the hope of reward in an imaginary afterlife. Would Christians have been offended or not?

    See my two blogposts on the subject:

    http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2005/09/god-and-man-at-dartmouth-part-deux.html

    http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2005/09/god-and-man-at-dartmouth.html

  • Certainly Not Proselytizing
  • Posted by Patrick on October 1, 2005 at 8:28am EDT
  • Cathy and P, I think you both made very sound points. I don't agree with the basis of your argument in regard to Riner's language, but I can appreciate your position. Where I personally think you are incorrect is in basing a position on Riner's use of "we." In reading his speech, albeit quickly as both kids are already awake!, he is not using the term we to describe a belief system that the entire audience should have. I appreciate and respect other religious beliefs, but as a Catholic, I do still believe that Christ dies for OUR sins, not simply the sins of Christians, and that the intent was to show all of US the power of redeeming love and that God hopes that WE will recognize this love and freely choose a moral lifestyle. That belief is not predicated on an entire population, or even aingle Dartmouth student in Riner's audience, believing in Christ. It sounds as if some of you are misusing language, and I do mean to infer that this is intentional, to prove that Rinder was proselytizing. Well, I don't know him so I can't in all good faith say with certainty that he was or wasn't, but I can tell you that his use of we, us, and our does not validate your argument. As I stated in an earlier post, there are ways to preface all arguments, all comments, all summaries of religious beliefs in hopes of clarifying that you do not mean to impose your beliefs on anyone or infer that your beliefs are more valid than any others, but I really believe we have reached a point of almost irrational insensitivity in this country. I hope next year's student body representative talks about the beliefs of atheists and agnostics because we should all learn how to hear the views of others we disagree with respectfully. In this case, Riner's language was the very same language I would have used in such an explanation--not to impose my religious beliefs on the audience, but to illustrate that Christians believe that Christ's crucifixion was for all of us, not only those who believe in him. Have a good weekend!

  • Posted by Colin Danby , Associate Professor at University of Washington, Bothell on October 1, 2005 at 5:41pm EDT
  • I liked the fact that Riner started by talking about Bad Alums. There's a lot of institutional self-congratulation at these affairs, and it's good to have someone suggest that moral distinctions can be made.

    One can surely disagree with the speech. (Am I the only person who cringed at "in the words of Bono"?) The talk leaves zero rhetorical room for non-Christians, and there are plenty of examples where moving from an institutional “we” to a sectarian “we” has bad consequences. Numerous people have made this and related points. It seems better to debate the content directly than to resort to prissy terms like “inappropriate,” which foreclose conversation. The “public” of public events shouldn’t mean a lowest common denominator.

    And yes, it’s weird is that this gets framed as a free speech *issue*, when in fact there’s no issue as far as I can see: the speech was given and there’s been a debate, and *of course* “officials are staying on the sidelines.”

    P.S. Tim Saxon’s 2nd paragraph, in his response above, is itself ill-phrased. Incidents of sectarian violence and intimidation abound, and there is a depressingly long history of institutionalized sectarian violence in many parts of the world as he must know. But his “given that Hindus regularly burn down churches in India and Muslims kill Christians with impunity” does not quite adequately distinguish between Hindus and Muslims in general, and particular people who commit sectarian violence.

  • Welcome to PCU!
  • Posted by Kathy , Instructor on October 2, 2005 at 6:08pm EDT
  • How pathetic a reception this young man received. A university is supposed to be a place where people THINK for themselves. All the nay-sayers assume that no one can think for themselves and that it's their politically correct duty to make sure no one thinks anything.

    Welcome to Politically Correct U!

  • A slightly different perspective
  • Posted by Jon , Student at Dartmouth College on October 3, 2005 at 4:22am EDT
  • As a student at Dartmouth, I can say that the uproar is both out of hand and is still continuing to reverberate throughout the campus.

    Although I admire Riner’s courage to speak sincerely and use examples in his life where he himself has found character, I feel that he went astray when he said that Jesus was on the cross "for us".

    Until that point in his speech, I felt as if there was nothing controversial in what he had to say. Noah is a devout Christian, and for him Jesus is a source of inspiration and a strong example of character. I admire him for sharing that with the student body.

    Nonetheless, as a representative of the entire student body of a secular university, I feel that he did a poor job representing the some 3200 upperclassmen he was supposed to be speaking on behalf of. This speech was meant to welcome all members of the class of 2009 into the Dartmouth community. By saying that Jesus died on the cross "for us", Riner created a rift both within the class of 2009, as many of the students are not religious Christians, and partially between the class of 2009 and the rest of the student body.

    I am not saying that Riner's speech has had a permanent impact on the freshman class. All I am saying is that by choosing some of the words he did, he did not represent the student body as a whole, nor did he make all members of the class of 2009 feel as welcome as he should have.

  • Posted by John , Alumni Perspective on October 4, 2005 at 4:11am EDT
  • As a recent alumnus, with friends still at Dartmouth, I have been following this fairly closely via The Dartmouth and conversations with students and alumni. After reading the comments above, I would like to bring up that the biggest point of controversy (in fact, the only point of controversy) has gone unmentioned -- the place of Noah's presentation. Noah, in his role representing the entire diverse student body, was welcoming the equally diverse class of 2009 to our institution. A new class that, undoubtedly, had been told an annual mantra -- they were designed to be 'the most diverse class in Dartmouth's history'. While the students attending convocation chose to be there, they did so believing they would be welcomed and introduced to the values of Dartmouth. What they got for five minutes from the student body president was a sermon how Jesus was the one savior we should all look to.

    Here is the reaction of a friend attending the convocation, "it seemed pretty clear that he was touting Jesus as the universal solution [not just mentioning him as a general example]. ... But it was pretty infuriating to hear him talk in one sentence about the value of diversity, and in another about how we should all look to Jesus for salvation."

    Noah was not wrong to invoke the important aspect of character development. I applaud that and think his illumination of alumni who might otherwise be hidden away was a wonderful tactic. I also endorse his invoking Jesus as a historical figure to admire for character; even as an athiest, I believe Jesus was. However, Noah should have also considered the unmentioned Muhammad, Confucius, Siddhartha Gautama, Laozi, etc. when presenting demonstrations of character. All of the aforementioned will have certainly provided important moral guidance to many of the 2009s.

    I have been told by many that Noah is a smart, worldly aware man (he wouldn't have gotten where he is were he not) and I can only conclude that his omission of all but Jesus while speaking to a diverse audience could have been nothing but a conscious decision and intended goal. I have no doubt that, as the son of a Baptist minister, Jesus has played an enormous role in Noah's life and it is no surprise that the structure of Noah's speech was strongly influenced by many years of sermons. His speech would have been welcomed at the campus chapel, in a group of individuals who selected to hear such a speech, or even as a stump speech in the middle of The Green (our quad).

    Noah faltered by not realizing that his sermon was inappropriate at secular Dartmouth's convocation. That misjudgement is the mistake, and the controversy.

    He could have done any of three simple things to have avoided this blunder. First, he could have decided against referencing Jesus to the exclusion of all others. Second, he could have omitted religion all together and kept the subject of his speech the commendable topic of character development and responsibility. Third, he could have used the singular "me" instead of royal "us".

    It's a shame he soiled his excellent speech like that. What is now being lost in a religious debate could have achieved so much more. It's ironic, he said "Character has a lot to do with sacrifice, laying our personal interests down for something bigger." Yet he didn't lay down his personal interests in religion to communicate his bigger message.

  • Congrads to Dartmouth University
  • Posted by Randy on October 8, 2005 at 5:38am EDT
  • Congrads to Dartmouth University for a job well done. You are about to graduate a young man with courage, integrety and character. One that is willing to speak his mind with the wisdom of a leader at such an early age. For those students offended because he didn't so call speak to all, I beg differ with you. The discussion goes on.

    Our prayers are with you Mr. Riner

  • Posted by Pam Myers , Courage under Fire on October 13, 2005 at 9:29pm EDT
  • Congratulations to Noah Riner's parents. It certainly wasn't Dartmouth that equipped him with the courage and boldness to speak his mind, even to those who hate what he said and want to deny him the right to say it.

    To Noah's God be the glory.

  • Riner et al
  • Posted by Arthur Ide, PhD on October 27, 2005 at 1:07pm EDT
  • The problem with the speech at Dartmouth, is the exclusiveness of the speech: as if the Jesus he accepts is a god for all people. That is arrogance.

    While there is no historical or juridical proof for a biblical Jesus, the comments that this alleged mortal made are worth noting, but only in recognizing that most are plagarized from other world literature.

    Professor Tim follows this arrogance, by suggesting that only innocent Christians are persecuted, but it was Christianity that inspired such hatred in Western European minds that the nefarious, vile, and evil Christian Crusaders attacked, killed, maimed and raped women, children, the aged, and captured defenders of towns that were Muslim for hundreds of years. Christians continue to be the most sinister of all people in veiled missionary activities, from Venezuela to Iraq where to eat requires prayers to a foreign god.

    It is imperative that today's mortals recognize the plurality of faiths and deities or the lack thereof, and keep their peculiar and particular philosophies for coreligionists and debating societies.

  • Simple Logic
  • Posted by Iain Jones on November 29, 2005 at 4:34am EST
  • I have followed the discussion above with much interest. It is interesting that nobody has actually disagreed that Jesus was a great leader or source of character guidance. Instead, the majority of comments relate to him being the only way, as if Mr Rider was using this as a bullying tactic.

    It's a matter of simple logic to refute such arguments. I attach a quote from C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" that tackles this thorny subject. None of the contributors contest Jesus' existence or his sayings, so we have a strong base from which to work:

    “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” [CS Lewis, Mere Christianity, Book 2, Chapter 3, The Shocking Alternative]

    Simple logic...

  • Flawed Logic
  • Posted by John on December 12, 2005 at 8:16pm EST
  • Only someone blinded by dogma could use Lewis' "simple logic" in this debate without seeing its utter absurdity. I suggest those believing Mr. Jones' stance take his argument to a professor of philosophy for an instruction on why it would crumble under the slightest pressure of rationale and proper logic.

    A simple proof of induction will illustrate one weakness -- "1) A man correctly claims A. 2) The same man also claims B. 3) Because A is true, B is true as well." This is valid if, and only if, B is related to, and an inevitable result of, A. If any example can falsify the claim, it fails as a proof.

    Here is a non-theological example where the logic fails: Tycho Brahe. This man provided the world with one of the most important sets of astronomical observations of the natural world. It was his data that enabled Kepler to prove the heliocentric universe with certainty, and yet Brahe always claimed a geocentric model. Since the example of Brahe fails the proof, one cannot generally infer that because a man makes some, even mostly, correct statements that he only ever speaks truth.

    One *must* be able to accept Jesus' moral teachings as true and reject the premise of him as the son of God because the two statements are not inextricably linked. At the most extreme, even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

  • Posted by Hoyle Edwards , Teacher at Fruitland Baptist Institute on January 9, 2006 at 3:35pm EST
  • Keep up the good work, Noah. You have every right to free speech and Dartmouth is to be commended for making sure you have that right on campus. If Jesus isn't a perfect example for building good character, then who is? I am utterly amazed at those who fear any opinion based on what Jesus taught. If you ever run for president, I'll surely vote for you.