Paternalism and the Pregnant Tree
Some readers may have scratched their heads when they read the snippet in the latest Weather Report, “Quarterback expelled over connections with the pregnant tree.” I am kind of surprised there hasn’t been more of a campus or blog reaction to the story that prompted this, especially since the press has picked up on it, from the local to the international level. This happened just a couple of weeks ago, but the story is still interesting, and it is worth discussing.
The pregnant tree is the easy part to explain. It is a tree with some sort of diseased lump, and is a well-known campus artifact.
The other part of the snippet actually happened, and deserves more explanation. Harding expelled its star quarterback, David Knighton, because he allowed a woman to stay at his house off-campus. This was a violation of a Harding policy, which states that “staying overnight in a motel, hotel or any such arrangement with a member of the opposite gender will result in suspension, although explicit sexual immorality may not have been observed.” Intelligent people, though, do not have to end all discussion after arriving at the conclusion that an action violated a written policy.
According to Knighton, a female friend needed a place to stay because she lost track of time and was going to miss the 1:00am curfew on campus. He didn’t want anything to happen to her – punishment from the school, or danger from sleeping in her car – so he told her he would leave the door unlocked. She spent the night on his couch. Knighton’s father commented on the situation: “He was doing his Christian duty. If my daughter was stranded like that, I know I’d hope somebody would come to her rescue. What’s so bad about it is David has done nothing wrong. But the dean told me it didn’t matter, that it wouldn’t make any difference [even if David Knighton’s version of events are accurate]. Doesn’t that sound silly?”
It does, in fact. What is the purpose of such a policy? At best, it is an annoying and misguided paternalistic intrusion into students’ personal lives. I have written before for this blog and for the Bison about how this kind of paternalism is crippling to the individual’s moral compass. At worst, it chases away good students, decent people, and star athletes, ruins reputations and careers, tarnishes the school’s reputation, and makes it a laughingstock.
It is fine if individuals choose to impose quaint and artificial restrictions on themselves because they want to avoid anything resembling a sexual encounter. That should be their choice. But this university policy, along with several other paternalistic policies at Harding do more harm than good. This story has been published in the Searcy Daily Citizen, The Arkansas Leader, The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, The International Herald Tribune, and others. The attention it attracts is not good. Almost anyone who reads these stories will see Harding as an absurdly Puritan and backwards institution that is more obsessed with following its own arbitrary rules than with the lives of real people or with the truth. Dean Varner’s comment that it wouldn’t matter establishes that pretty firmly. It is a shame that the school continues to squander its potential and deviate from its principles because it is dragged down by paternalism and legalism.
UPDATE: It turns out, John Wright did blog about this.
I appreciate and agree with your thoughts on paternalism. While I am impressed that Harding could swallow to suspend an athlete, I am sad that the intention of the law is being forgotten.
I can understand Harding having rules about what happens in dorms and on campus. While I may not agree with them all, I know they are trying to do what they can to uphold a Christian standard at this University. But I’ve never understood why they feel like they need to have rules about what we are and are not allowed to do off campus.
One of these days the mouthbreathers who keep saying, “you knew those were the rules when you enrolled” are going to get their wish. Everyone at HU will love the rules, and Harding Academy will have more students than Harding University.
I love it when my alma mater gets coverage like this!
It has also been covered by Sports Illustrated…
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/football/ncaa/11/05/knighton.suspension.ap/index.html?eref=si_ncaaf
I’ve been thinking about this event a bit and have come to what I think is an accurate representation of what this events signifies.
We (non-traditional progressives) see the enforcement of the “sex prevention” rule as anachronistic, backwards, and just plain silly. We see the attraction this event produces as harmful to the image of Harding, because, to us, it represents ridiculous and harmful paternalistic attitudes.
However, Harding, and “the board,” probably perceive the attention as something good, insofar as it reinforces its traditional stance on gender relations. I doubt the old, white, conservative men who run Harding see this event for what it is (backwards). They see it as Harding standing up for what it believes is right. They see conservative paternalism as helping to shape the consciousness of the student body; this event serves as an example to all who dare break their righteous rules. What is backwards and antithetical to progress for us is a moral stance for them.
Also, what is David Knight and his Dad appealing? David has admitted to letting a female student spend the night, a clear infraction of the rule that prohibits such actions. The punishment for breaking this rule is suspension. Are they appealing the absurdity of the rule? If so, that really isn’t an appeal, just a protest.
Best case scenario (and an impossible one at that), would be to lobby Harding’s board to change the rule, then grandfather David in.
I think the appeal might be to just create some tension and bring light to Harding’s outlandish rule.
Conservative Southern Culture, the philosophical underpinning of such policies as these, are what I look forward to leaving behind and never coming back to.
Did the young lady involved also receive suspension from HU? Why didn’t she go back to the dorm and receive whatever discipline that would be given to her instead of involving another student? It would seem to an outsider that she was being selfish, protecting herself, and not thinking of what would happen to her benefactor. As a football player, he knew he had to abide by the rules of the game. Life is full of rules, and without them we would have chaos and anarchy.
This is why I cannot get my best students to consider HU; they heard about his and have been dogging the school to death; I did explain to them that rules are rules; the real problem here is the double standard that exist at HU. I am surprised more women do not stand up for the sexism that exist.
Do you seriously believe the suspended student’s story? It could be true, but it also seemed to pop up a bit too frequently when the lascivious/awesome kids got caught when I was at Harding. I think the rule is dumb, but I’m more than a bit skeptical of the circumstances.
yeah, i’m inclined not to believe this story for exactly the same reasons you gave, kolby.
how did harding find out about this slumber party though?
They were probably informed by an angry, under-appreciated offensive lineman.
I don’t have any problem believing the story, and I don’t know any of the parties involved. I do, however, know a lot of people who went to Harding and spent many nights scrabbling to find a place to stay to avoid missing curfew. I understand Harding’s rule when looking at it from an appearance of evil angle. I think more important, though, is encouraging young men and women to make the right decision because it’s right, not because Harding has a rule for every single possible eventuality.
well my friend (breanna) is the one who had got kicked out of harding with mr. knighton and mr. knighton’s story is not accurate whatsoever. what happened is that the two had went to a party together and they had both decided that she should spend the night, so the two could spend time with each other. the dorm mom and deans got involved thinking something had happened to her and called in her roommates/suitemates/close friends and had questiones them asking where breanna was at. they had known who she was ‘seeing’ at the time and told them about her and mr. knighton’s relationship. the deans then drove by his house to check if her veichle was there. and sure enough it was. the next day or so she got called down to the deans office and they had wondered where she was at. they had already knew where she was at and her and mr. knighton were called to be questioned. they both pleaded guilty and were suspended. if anyone knows this girl she is the most sweetest and kindest girl. she is none of the things that mr. noah grant said. there are two sides to every story and i know breanna would appreciate me telling the truth.