Fire Under the Mule's Belly

Call it a tribute. Call it a political convention. Either way, few can call the funeral of Coretta Scott King uneventful.

Four United States presidents attending a funeral is indeed an honor to the deceased. This is a well-deserved honor for Coretta Scott King. King was a courageous leader for peace in all its applications. She called the nation to civil rights in race, gender, and sexual orientation. She adopted a vegan diet in respect of animal rights. In her attention to peaceful justice, King opposed both capital punishment and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

King and President Bush obviously did not see eye to eye on many issues. Unsurprisingly, the President was at first unwilling to change his plans to speak on his recent budget proposal in New Hampshire to attend King's funeral. Whether President Bush changed his schedule to attend the funeral was out of respect for King or political posturing, he suffered many political jabs for his attendance.

During the service Rev. Joseph Lowery verbally lashed the President for the war and suffering of the impoverished during his tenure in office. Former President Jimmy Carter likewise contrasted the mission of Coretta Scott King with current White House policies. These speeches drew loud applause from the audience and a terse look from President Bush.

Whether you see this funeral as an appropriate celebration of the life and mission of Coretta Scott King or a cheap political stunt probably depends on your political affiliation. Do we do injustice to remember King by her mission? Is it inappropriate to apply her mission to our current situation?

Finding an appropriate platform for protest is a challenge. Those that control access to the public are often the object of the protest. They cannot be counted on to provide an appropriate venue. Columnist Dan Froomkin of The Washington Post noted that it is rare for President Bush to hear criticism to his face. This is not because the dissent does not exist.

Our present administration is noted for its desire and ability to constrain those that disagree with the President. Protesters are often herded into sites far from the view of the President, his supporters, and the television cameras that would show the nation that there is a different way from the President's course of action.

Members of the campus community, myself included, have experienced pepper spraying and threats of physical action and arrest when peaceful protest gets too close to the President. In my experience, police violently blocked protesters from coming within several blocks of the President.

Constitutional right of assembly aside, where can those that disagree find a venue to voice their concerns? Those in dissent do not have the power of the presidency. They do not have the President's weekly radio address. They cannot call a press conference or address and command the television networks to air their remarks.

This campus is no stranger to the need for venues to voice concerns about the direction of the university. Many in the campus community still remember the large rainbow flag that protesters stretched across the campus lawn two years ago. Their challenge to EMU's relationship with lesbian and gay members of the community led to a campus forum on the issue that would not have occurred without their action.

Was it appropriate to commandeer the campus lawn to express a heavily contested viewpoint? Had Michael Shenk and Tracey King, the leaders of the protest, gone through the appropriate channels to offer their concerns to the administration, most of us would likely have never heard about it.

An article by former Weather Vane editor Kristine Sensenig, appropriately tacked to Common Grounds' opinion board, reminds us that these two students are not alone in having openly challenged the university's administration. Former President Joe Lapp founded an independent student newspaper, The Piranha, in response to administration censorship of The Weather Vane and opinion boards. The Piranha's purpose statement read, "We, the originators of The Piranha, have become increasingly disgusted with the dead spirit of complacency, which everyone agrees has paralyzed our campus, and have resolved to kindle a fire under the Mule's belly that will at least inspire noise if not movement. By providing a regular outlet for all EMC opinion, we hope to infuse a little life and loyalty into our college."

Though The Piranha was a product of a different and more restricted time in our university's history, the words of our former president are no less valid. Former President Lapp recognized as a student that a successful university is more than a balanced budget and politically correct informational materials. The vitality of this university depends on the passion of its students and their ability to engage the issues of this campus.

I recently conversed with an EMU staff member who lamented the negativity often seen in the Opinion pages of the Weather Vane. I admit these pages often contain many challenges and critiques of the university. These words of challenge give me hope for university. It speaks well of EMU that people care enough about the university to aggressively engage it with the hope of improvement. Yet students are not clamoring to address the campus in these pages. The last opinion board I walked past was nearly empty.

If EMU desires a vibrant university with interested and engaged students (and enough students to meet financial needs), it must open itself to frequent and public conversation with students. Many classes at EMU educate students to challenge our government and world on issues of peace just as Coretta Scott King did. Extend that lesson in challenging the status quo to this campus. This week's focus on sexuality is an excellent start. Listen when students speak on these issues during this week, and actually consider taking action on their words. And do not stop having a fair discussion on these issues whether it happens in an office, in this newspaper, or on the campus lawn.