<p>I would be curious to know from students if the student body is as divided about this as the media is portraying.</p>
<p>According to the Observer 97% of seniors support Obama coming to ND (not sure if this is true). The people protesting it are definitely in the minority. And I think people outside of the university are more upset about it than the student body is. Most people on campus either support it or accept it, even if they aren’t thrilled about it.</p>
<p>97% of the 95 seniors who wrote in to the Observer are supportive of the Obama invitation. Not quite the same thing as 95% of the 2000 actual seniors.</p>
<p>i have heard that the campus is pretty divided on this, and so is the alumni too. i wonder if they would ever rescind the invitation?</p>
<p>I hope not. I hate some of the decisions Obama has made, but he was invited and he is the president of the United States. I think if you can get him, take him…perhaps a few of the priests can get in his ear while he is at ND?</p>
<p>I don’t get it…In all of the threads this topic has been discussed in, current students/recent graduates contend that the campus isn’t divided, and that while there is a small movement against Obama speaking, most students are either pleased or don’t care. Meanwhile, older alumni and other various individuals act as if the campus is practically in a civil war over it.</p>
<p>Someone is wearing rose colored glasses…Question is, who?</p>
<p>I would be more likely to believe the actual students who live on campus. But hey, that’s just me.</p>
<p>Yeah, since, you know, we live here and all. But we could be lying or the protesters could just be really good at hiding…</p>
<p>Alumni at ALL universities can be so archaic in their ways sometimes. I believe the students. I do wish they would make it a point to drown out the few who are against Obama speaking. The media is making it seem like a HUGE deal and not just Faux news but even CNN.</p>
<p>It is a huge deal in the university community, which includes not only students but faculty, administrators, alumni, benefactors, and parents. And the fallout from this decision will be felt for quite some time. It is already being felt in the development office.</p>
<p>Take note of vociferous’s fair-minded approach: “drown out the few.”</p>
<p>It is a huge deal for one faction of the University community, and for them and for the relations between the University and them, this decision may leave a trace impact. And for them, this is understandably a pervasive and polarizing issue. From the outside looking in though, it is reasonable to see that the numbers are not nearly as exaggerated as the one faction will make it out to be, or as minute as the other will claim.</p>
<p>Alumni can be archaic, but they are the ones that help to sustain an endowment that provides for many current students. My concern is what will many alumni do with regards to donations; pursestrings are already tightened because of the economy. An event like this could cause even more tightening as a way of protest. I hope not…</p>
<p>Ten members of the Holy Cross community wrote a public letter to Jenkins in opposition to the invitation. Nearly 30 bishops have issued public statements in opposition to the Obama invitation.<br>
This issue will leave more than a trace impact.</p>
<p>It would have a trace impact if Obama just spoke and then went away. The impact from all the publicity would actually be very positive. You can’t deny the value of having every newscast and newspaper in America lead with Obama’s Notre Dame speech.</p>
<p>However, the awarding of the Honorary Degree of Doctor of Laws to a man who is signing and making laws that are antithetical to Notre Dame’s core values , in this spotlight, is the problem. This award indicates that Notre Dame is either confused as to what its core values are or is willing to consciously and directly put them aside. Notre Dame should give the man a Paul Hornung jersey or a special citation instead.</p>
<p>"Take note of vociferous’s fair-minded approach: “drown out the few.” </p>
<p>Right that is called democracy, unless someone’s rights are being violated among the “few” that’s what the courts are for.</p>
<p>For Jenkins this decision may follow him for sometime. Nevertheless, as it is, the University community will continue to thrive independent of this otherwise dividing issue, the future of the University is not in the flames that some have made it out to be.</p>
<p>vociferous: It’s an unfortunate choice of words; there’s a difference between outnumbering and drowning out. Protest is nobler when it defies the majority; in fact I suppose it does that almost by definition. When I hear “drown out” I think of the numerous instances in recent years of speakers on college campuses being screamed at and forced offstage for having unpopular convictions. It’s best to keep in mind when you’re in the majority that that’s the most comfortable place to be, and that the most comfortable place to be often isn’t the right one. The point is that President Obama represents the status quo; perhaps more than any other president he has the luxury of subservient media at his disposal, and I find in day-to-day conversations that there seems to be a widespread suspension of critical faculties when he is the subject. He will no doubt be received graciously at Notre Dame; he will certainly not be shouted down at any rate. But no one else should be shouted down either.</p>
<p>“Protest is nobler when it defies the majority”</p>
<p>A rather naive general statement. I remember a local KKK chapter protesting MLK day. It wasn’t exactly a “noble” protest.</p>
<p>“It’s best to keep in mind when you’re in the majority that that’s the most comfortable place to be, and that the most comfortable place to be often isn’t the right one.”</p>
<p>It is only comfortable when you are complacent. If you are trying to make substantive change, there is no room for complacency.</p>
<p>“The point is that President Obama represents the status quo; perhaps more than any other president he has the luxury of subservient media at his disposal, and I find in day-to-day conversations that there seems to be a widespread suspension of critical faculties when he is the subject.”</p>
<p>Haha President Obama does not represent the “status quo” that is ridiculous, he was elected to change the “status quo.” (Note I did not say he was going to change it I said he was elected with the belief that he would) As for a “subservient” media, I find it fascinating that the radical right harps on this to the point of nauseum, when it was the media, faux news for example, that annointed King George president and did not once make the connection between war, oil and his family business. It is also interesting how seditionists like Rush and Hannity can basically call for the overthrow of the US government and are given a free pass by the media. </p>
<p>As for the “blind” who worship “saint Obama” (which is what you are implying with you snide faculties remark) I think if you actually listened to the Left you would hear that they are very critical of Obama’s capitulating to the master’s on Wall Street and to the war mongers who want to invade (or crusade) in Afghanistan. But of course you would need to detox from Rush and Sean to do that.</p>
<p>ANY president represents the status quo by virtue of having been elected by a majority. I was commenting on the vitriol evident in so many of these posts. It must be nice to be able to file people into slots to keep things simple. I, for one, don’t watch Fox News, nor was I a Bush supporter, nor have I EVER seen or heard either Hannity or Limbaugh. But who am I to say so? You know me better than I do. This is what the spirit of dialogue has descended to; so scream away.</p>