A Historical Perspective On Community Standards At EMU

Mary S. Sprunger, Professor of History

When I came to Eastern Mennonite College as a new faculty member in 1992, the application process required me “to respond to” a “Statement of Commitment.” In contrast to the nearly thirty-year old 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith (which included an affirmation of women and the covering), it seemed positively modern.

The Statement of Commitment had been adopted by the Board of Trustees in 1979. In 1992, in the context of broader conversations about substance abuse on Virginia college campuses and at EMC specifically, concerns about the alcohol policy and the enforcement thereof, particularly off-campus, surfaced.

I participated in a “Campus Meeting” on alcohol use and the Statement of Commitment policy. This was a panel discussion with two faculty members, two Student Life staff, and two students. Since the policy asked community members to “refrain from . . . the use of alcoholic beverages” without qualification, some of-age students who lived off campus and some faculty felt that if they were not teetotalers, they were violating a statement they had to sign in order to study or work at EMC.

On the other hand, some voices were very vocal about retaining an abstinence stance in solidarity with fellow community members who struggled with alcohol abuse and to avoid involvement in systems contributing to addiction.

As a result of on-going conversations and discernment, in 1994 the President’s Cabinet recommended a new “Community Lifestyle Commitment” to the Board. This retained the spirit and, in fact, most of the language of the old “Statement of Commitment.”

There was no change in the policy regarding the consumption of alcoholic beverages. “Sexual immorality,” which had been left vague in the 1979 statement (presumably everyone knew what was immoral back then), was now specified to include “premarital, extramarital and homosexual practices.”

The only other substantial change was that instead of just requiring attendance at chapel “as outlined in the faculty and student handbooks,” the statement urged participation “in university-related religious activities as well as those of my local congregation.”

There was new acknowledgement that “it is impossible to create a community with expectations which are totally acceptable to every member” and that the “standards are not set forth as absolutes or as an index of Christian spirituality, but rather as current expectations for this community.” Nevertheless, “violations of these standards are regarded as a serious breach of integrity within the community.”

Student concerns about the policy continued, mostly about the issue of off-campus alcohol use and whether or not the university had the right to police students wherever they were. The alcohol clause was eventually softened in 2001, when the CLC yet again underwent minor revisions, but still was firm on the “nonuse” of alcohol.

(“Recognizing that EMU supports nonuse of alcohol and tobacco, I will respect and abide by the university policy that prohibits the use of alcohol and tobacco on campus or at university functions and the misuse of alcohol off campus.”)

The section on sexuality was changed to remove any specific references to homosexuality and the list of behaviors to avoid became longer (“refrain from sexual relationships outside of marriage, sexual harassment and abuse, pornography, acts of violence, abusive or demeaning language and the use of illegal drugs”).

Dropping any mention of same-sex activity from the CLC was in the context of a broader campus and church-wide controversy about homosexuality and concern for the safety of gay students. The President’s Cabinet once again “reaffirmed” the 2001 CLC in 2004.

The most surprising thing is how little the intent, specifics and even language have changed in the past 32 years. The statements have all stressed that as members of a Christian community, we should be accountable to one another and put our individual preferences behind collective concerns, while respecting a diversity of viewpoints and practices.

So, for example, even if it is not immoral to have an occasional alcoholic beverage, in solidarity with those who struggle with abuse and addiction one should abstain. Easier said than done. To paraphrase my late colleague in the History Department and former Academic Dean Al Keim, community is a great idea until someone tells you what to do.

In revisiting the 1979 “Statement of Commitment,” I was struck by this sentence: “It is, therefore, assumed that all members of the EMC community desire meaningful involvement in liberal arts education in a Mennonite context” [emphasis added].

While I understand the value of the current CLC, especially for Student Life purposes, I wish we could focus on the idea of taking our educational pursuits seriously. How might our campus environment be different if we held each other accountable for that? Or maybe we already do so with grades and course evaluations.