The Refractory

I must admit that I underestimated the college community after noticing the lack of response post-abolition of chapel. Because of the nature of working in the archives and the inevitable information gap (we only have in the archives what people have sent) I expect that this will not be the last time I make a terribly off-base assumption. So, without further ado, I present one of the most spirited Letters to the Editor that I have come across so far:

"Dear Editor,

Compulsory chapel is taken pretty much as a matter of course at Ursinus. “Chapel”; the word has religious overtones, which cannot illegitimize it, for Ursinus remains part of the UCC. However, with the heterogeneity of beliefs present, proselytizing would be quite unforgivable. The expounding of a more lived man’s views on ethical and relational problems may be well worth while, and even thought provoking. Indeed, an advertisement for some humanitarian organization is more than acceptable. But on the other end of the spectrum lies an area of concern quite as fatuous as a fire and brimstone revival meeting at 9 o’clock on a Monday morning in Bomberger chapel.

Last Monday’s speech by Dr. Creager was undisguised propaganda for all of the conservative traits in the school that chapel stands for. What is worse, it was so poorly reasoned, almost insulting, especially considering the good grace with which it was accepted.

In a previous speech Dr. Creager quoted the rules and regulations for Mt. Holyoke College from some generations back saying that we weren’t so badly off after all. This week he decides that our rules and regulations are a product of trial (and error?) suited to our needs in our future life. Is it impermissible then that we live now, that we begin the empirical process of self dependence before we are launched into the cold cruel world? Granted, of course, that complete independence from, after dependence on an artificial system becomes chaotic; nevertheless there must be something wrong with this smugly self-reighteous I-told-you-so-ist attitude, if enforced chapel services like this one are necessary to quell an unthought of rebellion against this, the best of all possible environments.

And when we of the synthetic environment are unprepared to face a synthetic definition of pure study, a contradiction results that looks like the last step in a redectio ad absurdum.

Right?

So, as Buggsy might say, we have two choices left; to apply to New College with thirty demerits for skipping chapel, or to rest our weary heads on those soft hymn-books, and dream of freedom.

At last a “service” that was less than soporific! Professor Fergeson has wakened the indolent in chapel…but not by disserting on how to be good, or even thrifty, but by refuting the existence of God.

To forestall any attempts at censorship by the environment makers, I would like to propose the formation of a student board to pass on the chapel homily topics as to whether they are acceptable or not, coupled with a suggestion box to find what would be of interest to the students of this, our College.

Signed,
The Refractory
(Chapel Examined, In the Mail, page 2, The Ursinus Weekly, Vol LXVI, No. 3, November 10, 1966)

To sum this one up I would say that we have students simply posing the question of "what's the point?" The mid 1960s was a big time for the Ursinus Weekly - students were getting much more comfortable with expressing their opinions about not only Ursinus issues but world issues. I don't believe that it's too much of a stretch to suggest that the students were desperately trying to come to terms with the happenings in the rest of the world while they were sitting (somewhat) comfortably back in Collegeville, PA. In some instances the feelings experienced were restlessness (remedied by trips to Vietnam protests in DC) and in others anger and a need for action (protests at Ursinus itself when the sheriff from Selma, AL was brought to the school as a guest speaker to share his side of the Civil Rights story). We also have the phenomenon of students listening closely to what authority figures present to them and then going ahead and deconstructing the formal words in order to understand what is really being said.

"The Refractory" doesn't seem to be terribly insulted by chapel itself but by what chapel time is being used for. As acknowledged in the opening of the letter, Ursinus is still affiliated with the UCC at this time even though the Ursinus community is made up of people from greatly varying backgrounds. What is upsetting to this group of students(I will assume that it is made up of students although there is no concrete indication) is that the school is conservative. What's more is that Dr. Creager (campus chaplain for those who are unaware) was talking down to the students about why conservatism is the right way during the chapel talk in question. From what I gather the students have no objection to listening to a speaker discuss the importance of moral or ethical living, but rather to being told how to live. If I am understanding the letter correctly then it appears to me that the students are much more inclined to have "real" experiences at Ursinus so that they will be prepared for the "real" world.

Keep in mind, too, that this was also a time when students were fined for walking across the lawn, women were not permitted to wear pants to class, there was to be no visiting of the opposite sex's dormitories, and there was a strict curfew for the women's houses. The conservatism being protested comes in the rules, and students just generally don't like rules. Ever.

I'm still working through this letter and will most definitely return to it at some point during the project. I'm planning to review faculty minutes and other such sources as I move forward and hopefully those will help me put all of this in perspective since I suspect that there's more here than just frustration with campus rules and such.