Messages

Agreed on the color scheme.

And thanks, JBC, for having to attempt to explain to my 10 year old why you have a picture of Lebron James being sodomized as your profile picture. Stay classy, Valparaiso.

Not an expert, but generally speaking I would not suggest explaining sodomy to a ten year old. But to each his own.

We need to switch to a black/gold or yellow/black and do away with the 1970s colors. The merchandise would look so much better and would be appealing to the younger crowds. We need more modern looking merchandise. 

I don't think there is any coming back from the point we are as a program. Assuming we fire have a new coach after this year, what is there to recruit on? No recent success, bad facilities, dwindling public support.

Very much agree. The program is dead for the foreseeable future.

And it cannot possibly be overstated how big of a mistake it was leaving the Horizon League for the MVC. We cannot compete in the MVC.

Some may not like to admit all of this, but they're kidding themselves.

["whatever works."]

Again, it seems a few are missing the point here.

In what are trying times for Valpo, we all should be primarily concerned with the university's viability, correct?

Therefore, if by more prominently featuring its Lutheran heritage, the university could most effectively solve its ongoing enrollment problem in the here and now, it should do so, should it not?

And if Valpo's decision-makers were indeed to determine that by more prominently featuring the university's Lutheran heritage the school could most effectively solve its ongoing low enrollment problem, this of course would not and should not entail students of other faiths being "excluded" or "unwelcome" in any true sense of these words.

This is not to say I necessarily believe that this particular strategy would indeed be the most effective way of solving this problem. I have readily admitted I do not know what the best approach would be. I am only saying whatever it is, we should all support it without hesitation — given all of the serious issues faced by our alma mater at this particular point in time.

Thus, Chitwood does not "understand" my "point of Lutheran-only marketing would be the best for quick expansion," because this is of course a point I have not made during this exchange.

I do not care what Valparaiso University does, so long as what it does is follow the surest path towards securing its viability.


Chitwood,

You would indeed be sacrificing the viability of the university by doing anything other than more prominently featuring the school's Lutheran heritage and/or focusing on the recruitment of prospective students identifying as Lutheran, if and only if this were the manner in which Valpo could best handle its problem with low enrollment numbers.

In this same vein, sacrificing the viability of the university is exactly what you proposed doing when you wrote the following comments:

"if you are only concerned about expansion numbers, yes, you can probably grow the quickest by leaning hard into the uber-religious, Lutheran focused, super conservative right-wing crowd."

And, "the only question is – is that what's best for the University's reputation and identity?"

You seem to not understand your own comments. It is not any wonder why you don't understand mine.


It makes no sense whatsoever that you would say I "act like diversity of speech is something new."

I have not written anything which has explicitly stated or implied this.

In fact I have endorsed the idea that Valpo focus on growing its perceived amount of diversity of speech or whatever else should it be the best way for the school to address low enrollment.

I wrote, "If any serious concerns exist about Valparaiso University's viability, the school and its leadership should focus exclusively on what will most likely secure its future. If this entails marketing the school solely to Lutherans, or to whomever really, then so be it."

And in the same context, "whatever works."

Earlier, I wrote, "I hope I have made clear to anyone reading my comments that I am not necessarily in favor of Valpo's Lutheran heritage being featured more prominently, or less prominently, for that matter. What I am in favor of is that the school does what is truly in its best interests."

Though, evidently I did not make this point clear enough so you would understand it.

I have said that just because an idea is "diverse," this does not then necessarily mean it is good. This is only stating the simple truth.


If you don't think more prominently featuring the university's Lutheran heritage lends itself to the development of a positive identity/reputation for the school, then I unequivocally believe this opinion is reflective of your prejudice.

There is no acceptable reason for thinking that prominently featuring a religious heritage should hinder any college/university in its development of a positive identity/reputation.

And if, as you suggested in your most recent series of comments, you believe an academic institution's identity/reputation would be more "refined" by not following the more religious track, I believe this also reflects your prejudice.

This is because what is the opposite of "refined" other than "unrefined?" Thus, to in any way suggest Valpo would be more "unrefined" by becoming more Lutheran focused is both depreciating and insulting.

The definitions of "unrefined" according to Merriam-Webster are as follows:

a). Lacking moral or social cultivation; b). Not separated from dross (something worthless or unwanted essentially), impurity, or unwanted matter.

Furthermore, the way you expressed your viewpoint was rather derisive, was it not?

Once again, you wrote, "if you are only concerned about expansion numbers, yes, you can probably grow the quickest by leaning hard into the uber-religious, Lutheran focused, super conservative right-wing crowd."

Everything which needed to be said here already has been. I am done arguing with you.

Chitwood,

You are missing the point.

Neither of our opinions matter, so long as they are based solely on our personal experiences.


I don't know if I've explained myself well regarding the next topic. I'll try one more time....

Our difference of opinions on whether or not Valpo should focus more on the short or long-term likely reflects how gravely I view the situation as opposed to how I'm assuming you view it.

Valpo has experienced a gradual decrease in its enrollment spanning more than a decade, recently resulting in the university having to make substantial cutbacks. The school has had some time now to both recognize and reverse this downward trend in enrollment, but it has evidently been unsuccessful. The university has also just suffered two completely unprecedented public relations disasters. We do not yet fully understand the impact these will have. Then, we must also consider some of the lingering challenges posed by the pandemic.

It is in this context that I would like Valpo to focus primarily on how its enrollment problem can best be solved in the here and now as opposed to fixating on what might happen in the future if the rate of religiousness across the country were to continue to drop.

Therefore, if by more prominently featuring its Lutheran heritage Valpo could get rid of the enrollment issues, the university should do so with nothing but the utmost alacrity.

Furthermore, I will reiterate if Valpo were so fortunate as to find whatever "today's" solution to the school's ongoing enrollment problem is, there's good reason to think this solution will also work for the university "tomorrow," or the foreseeable future.

There is no reason to think one day, all of a sudden, and without any warning whatsoever, any formerly successful approach to handling this problem would altogether lose effectiveness. There would be indicators of change coming along the way, providing the university with opportunities to respond accordingly.

At the very least, successfully identifying and implementing "today's" solution will guarantee that for the university there will be a "tomorrow."


The idea of sacrificing the viability of the university at such a tumultuous time as this in favor of your individual perceptions pertaining to the amount of "diversity of speech" on campus or what you consider to be the school's reputation/identity is completely unreasonable.

And this is exactly what you proposed doing when you wrote, "if you are only concerned about expansion numbers, yes, you can probably grow the quickest by leaning hard into the uber-religious, Lutheran focused, super conservative right-wing crowd."

And, "the only question is – is that what's best for the University's reputation and identity?"

Therefore, I don't believe we will find much common ground here.


You are also continuing to operate under the assumption that by more prominently featuring its Lutheran heritage this necessarily means Valpo would not be positioning itself well for the long-term. While this may be true, it may not be. We don't know.

For instance, if of the religiously affiliated schools across the country, more and more begin distancing themselves from their religious traditions, the other religious schools would almost certainly then see something of an uptick in interest from those prospective students wanting a more religiously inspired college/university experience.

I'm confident this is something you've considered.


Regarding some of your most recent comments on diversity of speech...

You said you disagree with what I wrote "completely."

Therefore, am I to assume you do not believe there are truly bad ideas in the world and that some of these ideas have no place on a college/university campus?

And now you are saying diversity of speech should "always be the focus particularly if you want to expand."

But again, in your earlier comments you said Valpo could "grow the quickest by leaning hard into the uber-religious, Lutheran focused, super conservative, right-wing crowd."

Please get your story straight.


And once again, please explain to me why a college/university increasing its commitment to a set of religious principles and teachings would hinder this school's in its development of a positive reputation/identity?

Why are being very religious, Lutheran focused, very conservative, or right-wing negatives in your view?

Your opinions almost certainly reflect a degree of prejudice on your part.

Chitwood,

You were right to acknowledge that your perception of things is only informed by your personal experiences. Other people, including myself, have had very different experiences leading to the development of very different perspectives.

Thus, our perspectives on such things hold little value.


Yes, the Confucius Institute at Valparaiso University appears to in part have been closed because it was not in the university's best interests in terms of its overall reputation to allow this institute to continue operating.

I'm not arguing reputation/identity does not matter, only that whatever serves the university best regarding viability matters far more than any other consideration given recent difficulties.

However, there is another reason why Valpo closed its Confucius Institute which you apparently have not realized. This being that it appears the university has not received any money from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) since 2019.

From 2010-2019, Valparaiso University reported itself to have received approximately 1.1 million dollars from the CCP.

Statements from Indiana Attorney General Todd Rikita's op-ed published on in.gov in follow up to the original announcement of his investigation reveal that at least in terms of the first several weeks of this investigation, Valpo was not found to have received any additional money from the CCP aside from the 1.1 million reported between 2010-2019.

I am rather confident Valpo would not have so successfully hidden its continual receipt of funds from the CCP so as to have prevented the attorney general's office from uncovering this after some weeks of investigation.

Lending further credibility to the idea that Valparaiso University ceased to receive money from the CCP a few years back is the fact that federal law was passed in 2019 prohibiting U.S. colleges and universities from receiving any money from the CCP for anything related to Chinese language studies. And again, 2019 was the last time Valpo reported having received money from the CCP.

For Valpo to have continued receiving money from the CCP any time after 2019 would have been exceedingly foolish and would have subjected the university to far greater criticism and scrutiny than it has already come under because of its Confucius Institute. I find it very hard to believe the school would have been so foolish.

Therefore, your premise is false. Valpo did not do away with its Confucius Institute despite it continuing to bring in money, being good for business in any sense.


It is complete supposition on your part to suggest Valpo's reputation/identity would no be best served by the school placing an increased focus on its Lutheran heritage as opposed to maintaining the status quo or doing otherwise. I'm also curious why you seem to believe this.

How exactly would a greater commitment to a set of religious principles and teachings at a college or university hamper a school's development of a positive reputation/identity? Why can Valpo not forge a "powerful reputation/identity" while simultaneously making such a commitment?

Someone thinking any less of a college or university simply because of its commitment to a set religious principles and teachings would seem to reflect only this person's prejudice.

Private institutions have every right to promote a certain set of beliefs and values. They should not be thought less of because of this.


Focusing on the "short-term numbers" right now is exactly what the University should be doing. To do anything other than this is indeed completely illogical. This is of course because the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior; and future success, is past/present success.

Figuratively speaking, if Valpo can find a way to succeed today, there's a safe bet that by doing the same thing that led to this success, the university will also succeed tomorrow.

Success in the present is also something that has recently eluded Valpo in terms of addressing the gradually decreasing enrollment it has experienced over the past decade or so. If the university were to be so fortunate as to find any solution to this problem, this without question should be something the school continues to pursue.

I believe I view the situation regarding Valpo's long-term sustainability as a bit more dire than most. Again, Valpo has suffered a slow but steady decrease in its enrollment over the past decade-ish, which has resulted in program cuts, etc.

In my opinion, this unfortunate trend in the university's enrollment is rather well-established at this point, and the school has already had ample time to both recognize the trend and take measures to reverse it. I really hope the new president can turn things around.

Then there are the recent public relations nightmares involving the already discussed Confucius Institute and the logo fiasco.

All of this worries me.


I take no issue with your follow-up comments specifically relating to the founding fathers and the phrase "marketplace of ideas."


In my opinion, diversity of speech is not nearly as important as freedom of speech. As you surely know, there are some truly bad ideas out there in the world, among them the restriction of free speech itself. Just because ideas are diverse, this does not mean they are good.

I'm really not concerned about any college or university campus becoming an echo chamber in a real sense while freedom of speech still exists and the school in question operates within the larger context of a western, liberal, democratic society, as Valpo is so fortunate to do.

Again, if any serious concerns exist about Valparaiso University's viability, the school and its leadership should focus exclusively on what will most likely secure its future. If this entails marketing the school solely to Lutherans, or to whomever really, then so be it.

Whatever works.


Yes, "ignore" would have been a better choice of words.

[idealistic]

Chitwood,

I'm curious what the basis is for you having stated that "to most non-Lutherans, Valpo is not even thought of as a super religious school."

Please explain how you developed this impression.

And unless you can provide something substantial to support your assertion, you have almost certainly fallen into the same trap which you previously accused 78crusader of falling into: drawing conclusions from a small sample size, one based on your personal experiences.

I also found some comments in your recent response to wh as rather apparently lacking in logic. Thus, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that mp91, and in particular, vu84v2, thought this response was something worthy of praise.

Wh could not be more correct in pointing out that Valparaiso University is first and foremost a business entity. And therefore that it is essential the University do what is in its best interests in terms of viability at all times, completely disregarding such arbitrary ideas as living up to selected ideals of Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers — ideals that were broadly intended for a nation, mind you, not for the long-term viability of a private college/university.

Furthermore, more prominently featuring Valparaiso University's Lutheran heritage in terms of its approach to recruitment or its curriculum does not compromise freedom of speech principles or the concept of "the marketplace of ideas," a term which the founding fathers did not use. Or should we expect that in this scenario restrictions upon free speech would be set in place for Valpo's students and faculty?

You are also definitionally advocating for the University to adopt an idealistic approach in conducting its business operations rather than a more business/marketing oriented approach. How long will this kind of an approach be sustainable for Valpo at a time when there are already serious concerns existing over its sustainability, and the school has just suffered two public relations disasters (Confucius Institute and the logo fiasco)?

You entirely misunderstand that what serves the University best from the business/marketing/sustainability perspective is without question what is also best for it from the University perspective. After all, what will your, mp91, and vu84v2's perceptions of the University's reputation and/or identity matter if the University at some point in the future is forced to cease operations due to a low enrollment?

Essentially, above all other considerations it is in Valparaiso University's best interests that it should continue to exist.

Thus, I am indeed only concerned about "expanding numbers" or at the very least securing them at this moment in time; as we all should be. The University does not currently find itself such a privileged position as to conduct its business dealings in any other fashion.

I must also challenge the line of thinking that Valparaiso University would be "rejecting" people of faiths other than Lutheranism simply by "targeting people with conservative trains of thought" as prospective students.

In no scenario would prospective students of differing religious persuasions be "rejected" from attending Valparaiso University or formally "rejected" by the university community should these students come to enroll at Valpo. Using such charged language as this to me comes across as disingenuous.

You also seem to be equating Lutheranism with conservatism generally. Can a Jew not be a conservative? A muslim?

A very poorly thought out series of comments.


I hope I have made clear to anyone reading my comments that I am not necessarily in favor of Valpo's Lutheran heritage being featured more prominently, or less prominently, for that matter. What I am in favor of is that the school does what is truly in its best interests.

Valpo first.

IMO....

When judging by their original stated purpose at the Council or Claremont, the crusades were indeed justified.

They were not justified in many aspects of how they were carried out and some of the associated fall out.

It is important not to judge people who lived 1,000 years ago by today's standards of behavior. But it would nonetheless be inappropriate to ignore the cruel and unjustifiably violent acts committed by many crusaders while in general terms commemorating the example of "the crusader" as something laudable, even implicitly. The legacy of crusades should be, and will forever be tainted.

However, the term "crusade" has evolved very much over the past millennium. It has come to mean more than the imperfect example set by the Christian warrior 1,000 years ago. For example, one might embark on a "crusade" for justice, truth, etc. And this evolution in the word's meaning is evidently reflected in the present day definition of the word.

By any reasonable estimation, Valpo would have been justified in retaining "The Crusaders" as the nickname, much in the same vein as College of the Holy Cross.

Holy Cross in fact cited the present day meaning of the word "crusade" when detailing the school's decision to ultimately keep its nickname, after a change was considered. The college decided to switch its logo from a knight to a shield, though.

I must really credit Holy Cross for its nuanced approach. It stood by the crusader nickname and also successfully distanced itself from any direct connotations with the crusades themselves.

It would seem they found the right balance. And compared to Valpo, there was no uproar whatsoever over these small changes amongst Holy Cross' students and alumni.

Holy Cross is also located in an extremely liberal city and state, Worcester, MA. If the college could get away with the Crusader nickname there -- and it most certainly has -- I can't see any reason why Valpo couldn't do so in IN.

The situation with Holy Cross truly could not have provided a better road map for navigating this same issue. Valpo even had the advantage over Holy Cross in that it had already been featuring the now very familiar shield/flame logo for some years.

Why Valpo did not choose to follow Holy Cross' example is a question worth asking.


On an unrelated note, the forum having added the beacon imagery at the top almost seems like an intentional troll job. It just looks so dumb lol. While I do hate the logo, it does make me laugh.

[Most vaccine-hesitant group is those with PhDs, research shows]

Most vaccine-hesitant group is those with PhDs, research shows

https://www.thecollegefix.com/most-vaccine-hesitant-group-is-those-with-phds-research-shows/

I thought this was interesting. That's all.

(I have previously gone on the record here as being pro-vaccine.)

Part of me can't help but wonder whether Valpo will have the financial resources to capitalize on any success the bball program might have in the coming years.

But I agree that should be as much of a priority as is reasonably possible. The mens bball program is perhaps our school's best ambassador, at least outside of the midwest.

For instance, I grew up and continue to live on the east coast. When I tell people where I went for undergrad, if they have heard of Valpo, it is almost exclusively because of the former successes of the mens bball program. Some ppl even get quite excited to talk about it with me, particularly about "the shot." In contrast, I've had only one conversation about how great our engineering program is.

And then, outside of individuals within my immediate church community, I've not had any conversations about Valpo related to its religious affiliation. Comparatively speaking, there are very few Lutherans out here.

There are far more ppl that college basketball appeals to than Lutheranism or whatever else. Seems to make the most sense to place the focus there.

Maybe we should begin a GoFundMe purposed for meaningful ARC renovations or something. Personally, I feel addressing the facilities issue is tops on the to-do-list.

It's a lot better. Wouldn't mind it as a secondary logo. I still think we should just stick with the shield as the primary at this point -- which is saying something because I really don't care for the shield all that much.

I really used to like the cartoonish crusader logo that looked somewhat similar to Notre Dame's fighting Irish logo.

(This will be the last time I make a post related to this topic. Everything that needed to be said already has been. Furthermore, I find it depressing.)

IrishDawg,

In the cases which have earned Confucius Institutes the deserved scrutiny they are now under, these institutes have not operated to simply paint the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in a "positive light."

But even if this issue were so simple, how could you possibly believe painting a country in a positive light which is actively engaged in genocide of multiple religious and ethnic minorities, for instance, is in any way comparable to the U.S. promoting itself through educational opportunities, the international broadcasting of European soccer, or K-pop?

And who is acting as though we do not currently live as members of a global community, and what does this possibly have to do with Confucius Institutes?

These are easily some of the poorest lines of thinking I have seen on this forum.

The U.S. State Department has decreed by law that Confucius Institutes are to be considered "foregin missions" of the CCP not because they teach language and culture. While these institutes certainly do these things, the institutes have also been found to do many other things. And this is the reason the issue is so important.

The problem with Confucius Institutes is really not so much about what they do say and teach, but what the operators of these institutes will not allow to be said or taught -- matters of extreme importance to humanity as a whole.

The operators themselves are first screened and hired by the CCP, and then and then only, individual colleges and universities are able to choose from the group. If institute directors and teachers have been determined by the CCP to "engage in activities" considered to be "detrimental to [Chinese] national interests," these individuals' contracts are automatically terminated.

Off limits topics include anything related to the Dalai Lama; Tibetan independence or autonomy; Tawainese sovereignty; the forced takeover of Hong-Kong; and most importantly of all the CCP's baltant genocidal acts spanning decades (which include involuntary organ-harvesting) targeting multiple religious and ethnic minority groups; etc.

To perhaps better make the point, please consider how appropriate it would be for a U.S. college or university to have a "Nazi Institute," where German language and aspects of Nazi Germany's culture were taught to students and there was no mention whatsoever made or allowed of the Holocaust or Hitler's ambitions to take over the world.

If I'm not mistaken, the entire purpose of any "investigation" is to, in the presence of uncertainty, ultimately arrive at a point of certainty.

Therefore, Rikita's investigation "hinging on the possibility" that the Confucius Institute at Valpo did something wrong does not automatically delegitimize it.

Please keep in mind that Valpo did not disclose how the money it received from the CCP was put to use and it remains unclear whether colleges and universities were under some type of obligation to do so.

And Valpo received over a million dollars, far more than "the cost of a single professor."

As I have already explained in previous posts, this has absolutely nothing to do with teaching students to embrace communism generally or hate America, either. 

It is necessary to keep in mind the statements made by multiple high-ranking CCP officials regarding the purpose for sponsoring Confucius Institutes abroad. These include explicit acknowledgement that the institutes "carry out propaganda battles against issuers such as Tibet, Xinjiang [Uyghur genocide], Taiwan, human rights, and Falun Gong."

And, "The 'Confucius' brand has a natural attractiveness. Using the excuse of teaching Chinese language, everything looks reasonable and logical."

Just as whether or not we should embrace the fact we are now part of a broader global community is irrelevant to this issue, so is Donald Trump.

The bottom line is Valpo screwed up by not understanding that it should have gotten rid of its Confucius Institute, and perhaps by not disclosing how the money it recieved was put to use.

Also, it does not matter if this investigation is b.s. or if Rokita is a partisan moron, but it matters very much that the University is getting a lot of bad press because of all this.

And most regrettably, all of this would seem to have been avoidable.

[which recently and officially designated these institutes as "foreign missions" to the CCP.]

Guys, it does not matter one bit if Rokita is a clown or if the investigation is politically motivated or has merit. You are very much missing the point. I largely agree with you about the investigation's likely motivations and its necessity. 

Though, Rokita really has not "claimed" or said anything as it relates to Valparaiso University specifically that is not a matter of absolute fact. Confucius Institutes are indeed alleged to function as a propaganda arm of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), including by the U.S. State Department, which recently and officially designated these institutes as "foreign missions" to the CCP.

Valpo also does have a Confucius Institute. And Valpo has received over a million dollars from the CCP to host this institute, yet apparently the school has not disclosed how the money was used. I would be very curious to know whether or not there was some obligation to do so. At the very least, not having done so ultimately served to invite this unfortunate investigation.

The school would have been far better off, though, realizing that opinion has very obviously shifted in recent years on colleges and universities hosting Confucius Institutes and discontinuing its own.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the other organizations in China with which other colleges and universities may or may not have relationships with. I'd be interested to learn more about what these organizations might be, though. Please explain.

As Valpopal's and my previous comments indicate, the only thing which truly matters here is the very bad publicity the announcement of this investigation has given Valparaiso University. Many observers, particularly those unfamiliar with Valpo, will not be as willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a school they have no direct knowledge of or allegiance to. Some will not understand or consider that Rokita seems to be something of a partisan.

And to others, it will surely be far more interesting to think some small, religiously affiliated university in the midwest, of all places, has elements that are operating as a "front" for the CCP -- one of the greatest human rights violators in the world today (e.g. genocide, involuntary organ-harvesting).

And the headlines associated with the announcement of this investigation will give these individuals plenty of fuel for that fire. For instance, the headline from nwi.com, which reads, "Indiana attorney general investigating whether Valpo institute is front for Communist Party."

Generally speaking people only read the headlines anyway, not the articles, and especially not the follow-up articles, if these even end up being written. And it is only in these follow up articles that it would be explained to readers that the original headline and story were essentially a waste of everyone's time.

Furthermore, this is all developing at what was an already tumultuous time for Valpo given its ongoing financial difficulties; the controversial decision to retire the Crusader nickname; the controversial choice of "Beacons" as the replacement; and then, the subsequent fiasco with the logo.

Essentially, coming on the heels of the university having unintentionally but nonetheless marginalized many members of its community with the business regarding the nicknames and logo, the broader reputation of the school is now going to take something of a hit because of the announcement of this investigation, spurious or not.

The effects everything related to this investigation will have remain to be seen, but it would be foolish to think this is not another very unfortunate development.

I am praying for Valparaiso University.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Valparaiso University apparently has released an official statement about the Confucius Institute funding situation:


"Valparaiso University is, and always has been, transparent and compliant with the reporting of these funds. Valparaiso University does not and would not support any kind of endeavor that furthers or promotes communist ideology as doing so would conflict with its Christian mission and purpose and its strong support of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that protects the freedom of speech and religion."


This statement is a start but probably doesn't go far enough because questions will be asked about how the "Christian mission and purpose" align with the actions and policies of the Communist Chinese government with which VU has indirectly partnered—concerning genocide, religious freedom, human rights, environmental issues, intellectual theft, limitation of children, virus control, etc.—and whether they will remain silent on the Chinese government's role in those topics.

I agree that this statement should be thought of as incomplete. It does not in any way address the specific types of influence Confucius Institutes have been found to exert at other colleges and universities for which these institutes have come under such scrutiny from even the U.S. government. The statement suggests the University continues to misunderstand this issue as some others on this thread also appear to.

In the relevant cases, Confucius Institutes have not sought to "promote or further communist ideology" generally, such as would be the case if they were in the habit of explicitly advocating for something contradicting Chrisitian or free-speech principles. 

Instead, these institutes exert a more subtle and specific influence. Examples of this influence and why this is indeed problematic have been thoroughly detailed in previous posts on this thread.

[This logo is too big a deal to let s first year designer "have at it". The entire process was poorly handled by the university. They are to blame, not for the name change, but the subsequent imagery.]

This logo is too big a deal to let s first year designer "have at it". The entire process was poorly handled by the university. They are to blame, not for the name change, but the subsequent imagery.

The face of the university and they decided to spend $0 on making it look professional and decent.

Upsetting.

This name can become very offensive and racist to many. A beacon of light implies a bright white light and is racist. Perhaps we should put up black lights around the ARC and paint the floor, bleachers, and walls with glow in the dark paint using every conceivable color.  Celebrate diversity and inclusion.  This would be more congruent with the entire reasoning for making the change in the first place.

I'm seriously concerned about this as well.

Please look at my previous comment on this issue if you'd like to know why.

I agree it is possible this investigation may be politically motivated and focused primarily on making headlines -- very unfortunately at the expense of Valparaiso University.

Thank you JBC1824 for the detailed information. I seriously doubt there is any legal problem for Valparaiso University, but the publicity can be damaging, as you indicate, especially among any who do not read beyond the headlines.


However, the investigation might likely raise questions concerning direct or indirect (even subconscious) influence that might exist due to the relationships with China's government and the funding involved. For instance, some might question whether the university has been oddly silent, reluctant to criticize China for well-documented human rights violations and international positions on Covid or the environment, especially since the administration and faculty are not shy about voicing opinions and making proclamations, official and unofficial, on numerous political or social issues among many other sources, even to the point of changing the mascot and school nickname, as noted in this thread.


The university probably should release a full and compelling response as soon as possible, perhaps containing a clear repudiation of certain Chinese government actions, to prevent poor public relations and push back in time to keep this story from gaining traction. 

Completely agreed. The court of public opinion is what will likely matter most here. And I'm genuinely freaking out about how this might impact enrollment.

Was really unwise for the decision-makers to not realize the way this issue was trending and make changes.

[the only Indiana based college or university to do so.]

I agree it is possible this investigation may be politically motivated and focused primarily on making headlines -- very unfortunately at the expense of Valparaiso University.

Todd Rokita is a Republican, while Valpo is surely on many a conservative's "sh*t-list" at the moment. Valpo's new president worked on Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot's transition team, and more notably, the university just kowtowed to cancel culture by changing its nickname.

However, I still found myself asking why else Valpo might have stood out to the state attorney general's office amongst the other colleges and universities in Indiana that may have ultimately received money from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for hosting Confucius Institutes in recent years. 

A quick search shows that other Indiana schools having recently featured Confucius Institutes included IU, Purdue, and IUPUI, amongst others. Apparently, these schools and many others did away with their Confucius Institutes, particularly after federal law was passed in 2019 prohibiting the U.S. colleges and universities with Confucius Institutes from receiving funding specifically for Chinese language studies.

However, Valparaiso continues to maintain its Confucius Institute and appears to currently be the only Indiana based college or university to do so.

Due to increasing concerns about the types of influence exerted by Confucius Institutes, the number of colleges and universities featuring the institutes has dramatically declined over the past decade. There are currently only 35 Confucius Institutes remaining at American colleges and universities, and many of these will soon be closed as well.

https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/how_many_confucius_institutes_are_in_the_united_states

It's also possible that what has led to some of this extra attention being paid to Valpo by the attorney general's office has something to do with the documents filed by Valpo showing it had received more than a million dollars from the CCP not revealing how this funding was put to use. This ambiguity may ultimately have invited these questions and criticism.

If this non-disclosure reflects a simple oversight by the university, it could prove to be a very costly one indeed. Valpo's reputation will have taken a hit because of this investigation and the attention it has drawn from publications as popular as The Daily Wire.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/indianas-attorney-general-launches-probe-into-chinese-communist-partys-domestic-propaganda-program

One thing that can be said with certainty is that it was exceedingly foolish of Valpo's decision-makers not to have made plans to discontinue its own Confucius Institute. In recent years, opinion on this issue has decidedly shifted, and Valpo has allowed itself to fall on the wrong side of this.

Now, it is true that Confucius Institutes have operated differently at different colleges and universities. However, there have been many examples of these institutes exerting a nefarious influence at schools, some of which were mentioned in a 2013 article written by University of Chicago professor Marshall Sahlins, in part citing the comments of another university professor,

"In an interview reported in The New York Times, June Teufel Dreyer, who teaches Chinese government and foreign policy at Miami University, said: 'You're told not to discuss the Dalai Lama—or to invite the Dalai Lama to campus. Tibet, Taiwan, China's military buildup, factional fights inside the Chinese leadership—these are all off limits.' The Confucius Institutes at North Carolina State University and the University of Sydney actively attempted to prevent the Dalai Lama from speaking. At Sydney, he had to speak off-campus, and the CI sponsored a lecture by a Chinese academic who had previously claimed that Tibet was always part of China, notwithstanding that it was mired in feudal darkness and serfdom until the Chinese democratic reforms of 1959. The Confucius Institute at Waterloo University mobilized its students to defend the Chinese repression of a Tibetan uprising, and McMaster University and Tel Aviv University ran into difficulties with the legal authorities because of the anti–Falun Gong activities of their Confucius Institutes. Other taboo subjects include the Tiananmen massacre, blacklisted authors, human rights, the jailing of dissidents, the democracy movement, currency manipulation, environmental pollution and the Uighur autonomy movement in Xinjiang."

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/china-u/

The comments made by the CCP's "Minister of Propaganda" about the purpose of Confucius Institutes as described in the Indiana.gov announcement of Rokita's investigation are also revealing. I'd encourage anyone to read them over once more. 

https://events.in.gov/event/attorney_general_todd_rokita_investigates_chinese_communist_partys_propaganda_program

Also mentioned in this announcement is that Chinese directors and teachers for Confucius Institutes have their contracts terminated if these individuals are found to "engage in activities detrimental to [Chinese] national interests."

Moreover, in a 2011 speech made by CCP politburo member Li Changchun, Confucius Institutes were described as having made "important contributions toward improving our soft power."

And, "The 'Confucius' brand has a natural attractiveness. Using the excuse of teaching Chinese language, everything looks reasonable and logical."

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/16/how-china-infiltrated-us-classrooms-216327/

(Politico has been given the media bias rating "Leans Left" by bias rating website All Sides.)

Therefore, it is unfortunately not accurate to say that Confucius Institutes only seek to "bring awareness" to China, in the same way a lot of other countries do.

It would be awfully naive to assume the CCP is in the habit of giving out millions of dollars to colleges and universities around the globe only to teach others about Chinese language and culture.

What is also concerning about this revelation that Valparaiso University received over a million dollars from the CCP over the past decade or so is that this is perhaps further evidence of the university's financial struggles.

A 2012 article published in the New York Times described those colleges and universities to which Confucius Institutes would likely appeal most to as "cash-strapped."

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/us/critics-worry-about-influence-of-chinese-institutes-on-us-campuses.html

Any way you look at this issue, it is very sad news for Valpo. I am more concerned than I have ever been about the university's future.

Well, this developing news story certainly counters any positive energy created by today's announcement of a new nickname! 


[tweet]1425144193895239683[/tweet]

Holy crap.

Is it a coincidence the university chose to announce it's new nickname today then?

Would be excellent public relations to make the announcement today in order to distract from this unfortunate piece of news.

Only saying that this is a possibility.

And perhaps if they found this out on short notice, a reason the logo looks like it was thrown together in 10 minutes by an elementary schooler.

Maybe they also should have chosen "Red Dragons" or "Panda Bears," given the university's alleged connections to the Confucius Institute. LOL.

https://twitter.com/band_jayne/status/1401044374516121601

Well, this developing news story certainly counters any positive energy created by today's announcement of a new nickname! 


[tweet]1425144193895239683[/tweet]

Holy crap.

Is it a coincidence the university chose to announce it's new nickname today then?

Would be excellent public relations to make the announcement today in order to distract from this unfortunate piece of news.

Only saying that this is a possibility.

[Amazonian tribe may hold key to having highly healthy brain, avoiding dementia]

Amazonian tribe may hold key to having highly healthy brain, avoiding dementia

https://www.studyfinds.org/tsimane-tribe-amazon-healthy-brain-dementia/

The Healthiest Hearts On Earth

https://www.pritikin.com/healthiest-hearts-diet

For a succinct breakdown on the diet the Tsimane people traditionally maintain:

"For starters, this healthiest hearts diet is carbohydrate-rich, but they are not the hyper-processed, refined carbohydrates typical in American society, for example, white breads, potato chips, and sugary drinks.

The carbohydrates of the Tsimane are whole carbs – rich in fiber and straight from the earth. Two-thirds of their diet is starchy carbohydrates such as corn, manioc root, plantains, and rice, which they grow locally. The remaining third is foods they hunt and gather – carbs like fruit as well as nuts, freshwater fish, and free-roaming animals, like pigs, that are much leaner than the pigs grown in U.S. stockyards.

Only about 2% of the calories in a typical Tsimane diet come from foods purchased in stores, such as bread, pasta, crackers, and sugar.

Research on Tsimane women broke down the Tsimane diet as:

72% carbohydrate
14% fat
14% protein"

[it should be more of a Beacon of truth]

I like the name and how it works with the school mission and Lutheran heritage. However, it is going to take sometime for me to get use to it as a sports reference/nickname, it just sounds very clumsy. Not really a fan of Beacon for change, that is not part of the university mission in my opinion, it should be more of a Beacon of truth. I also think they could have come up with much better artwork that included the flame.

The "Beacon of truth" idea would have been solid.

I'm concerned that at some point in the not too distant future, the nickname "Beacons" will have to be changed, as well, because of some finding it offensive.

Associating light in juxtaposition to darkness generally with all that is good? Even today, many would argue this has racist connotations.

Publications as highly trafficked as The Huffington Post have recently featured articles condemning these types of associations as racist.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/common-words-phrases-racist-origins-connotations_l_5efcfb63c5b6ca9709188c83

https://www.teachingtraveling.com/metaphor-darkness-as-bad/

Really a poor choice by the decision-makers if their intent was for the new nickname/mascot to be considered inoffensive and inclusive in perpetuity.

After all, the university's blatant association of light with "good" and dark with "bad" serves to reinforce peoples' racist and implicit biases. There's actually a good bit of science to back up the idea. 

https://theconversation.com/how-did-white-become-a-metaphor-for-all-things-good-140674

Beacons "guide us through the darkness," as the rollout video says? That's not going to work for very much longer, folks.

The groundwork has already been laid. Just give it a little more time.

Not a fan.

Particularly of the idea that Valpo is now meant to be a beacon for "change."

For what types of "change" is the university now to be considered a beacon of?

And what types of "change" should our society as a whole undergo, as determined by the university's current leadership group?

Very unfortunately, this messaging does cross the line into social justice politics, and therefore, the messaging itself and this choice of a nickname likely does not represent the majority of the Valparaiso community.

The decision makers were intent on being "inoffensive" and "inclusive," but have now perhaps marginalized the majority, albeit to a small degree.

I would have highly preferred something completely neutral, such as Dune Hawks or Gold.

[Miracle drug is 'life saving' against Covid and will stop sufferers needing hospital treatment, GPs claim]

Miracle drug is 'life saving' against Covid and will stop sufferers needing hospital treatment, GPs claim

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9848109/Miracle-drug-life-saving-against-Covid-stop-hospital-treatment-GPs-claim.html

"The breakthrough in treatment came after an Oxford University study of over 2,000 NHS Covid patients were given a course of the drug over ten days."