1 10 39 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/baa23a000c9d4da8f1c074337c2a0f4e.jpg f7951999066ec564da51335f54cd9c12 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History and Discourse Around Evolution at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource The theory of evolution proposes that life changed and diversified over time through a process known as natural selection, in which organisms who are better suited to survive outreproduce and outlast other organisms.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> The main ideology that opposes evolutionary theory goes under the monikers “creationism”, “creation science”, or “intelligent design”.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> They claim that life was created in it’s final form, usually by a god.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Religion has always been somewhat at odds with evolution, which is a natural occurrence resulting from the lack of any mention of evolution in the Bible and other holy texts. The rejection of evolution by much of the religious public seems to be on the decline in recent years, however, with the introduction of new theories that allow aspects of creationism to be conserved while still accepting evolutionary thought. But as the principles behind evolution are brought to other fields, some of that tension seems to be resurfacing as people look for evolutionary perspectives that allow them to keep their faith intact. These effects were put on display at Southwestern University in 2009, with the discourse at times returning to an ideological battle. The split between scientists and the lay people can be seen in the conflict between followers of evolution and creationism, with a major battleground for them being the rules around what is taught in public schools. Evolution has slowly replaced creationism in US public schools, but never in every state at once, and with uniformity within states.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> In many instances teachers are not allowed to speak out against creationism while teaching evolution, and are allowed to frame them as “alternatives” to each other without taking a clear side.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> Many of the decisions are handled on the state level.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> In addition, teacher religious beliefs have been found to be predictive of their willingness to teach evolution.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> For example, in 2007, Texas Education Agency’s Director of Science Curriculum, Christine Comer was forced to resign from her position after asking an anti-creationism speaker to speak at the school.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> The Texas Education Agency explained that she had made it look like the TEA had taken a side on the evolution debate when they intended to remain neutral.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> This example (which occured around two years before the Brown Symposium discussed in this paper) hilights that the “war” had yet to be won by the other side, and that battles were still being fought. In CP Snow’s lecture the Two Cultures, he says that academia has been fractured along the lines of “scientists' ' and “literary intellectuals” <a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a>. This makes sense in light of the increasing knowledge gap between scientists and others caused by specialization of science<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> . In a way, Snow describes a deficit model, in which the scientists are separated not only from the general public, but also from other intellectuals from outside their field. But as we will see, the deficit model is not always accurate to reality. As said by Bensaude-Vincent, “notions such as “lay public” and “science mediators’ are historical constructions rather than stable categories”<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a>. The “deficit model”, depicts the public as having a deficit of scientific knowledge and somewhat helpless, requiring the help of enlightened scientists to guide them to knowledge.<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> While it is easy to view the issue of evolution as seen by the public along the lines of the deficit model, with the evolutionists representing the scientists, and the ignorant and the religious representing the lay public, that is a reductionist view that ignores many of the nuances of reality. In 2009, two speakers spoke about evolution and religion at Southwestern University. One speaker was David Sloan Wilson, with his talk “ Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion”.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> His talk revolved around the use of evolution as a model for the development of Religion.<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> He pointed out how the “survival tactics” of religious groups often mimicked the behavior of different species of animals in the wild, by cooperating with group members, and at times being hostile towards other, competing groups.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> He described this as emerging from a type of “evolution”, not of species, but of ideas behind religion.<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> His insistence that religions were entirely human ideas gathered some dissent from the audience, with two (out of four) questions having to do with his claims against the “engaged god hypothesis”, or whether there is an active god.<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> This can be seen as a case of the popularization of science being done in a way that alienates the people it was attempting to reach. This plays into the version of the deficit model that depicts the evolutionist attempting to reach the religious masses, who reject him (at least in part) due to finding parts of his message offensive. But it can also be seen as an incident of a dialogue being had between the two worlds, something unexpected in the deficit model, in which communication is only necessary in the direction of scientist to layperson. The other speaker on evolution was Simon Conway Morris, who spoke on a religious view of evolution, describing an “alternate look between Darwin and Creationism”.<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> In “Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation”, he spoke at length about convergent evolution, which is the evolution of two unrelated species arriving at a point in which the species are very similar in form.<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> He repeatedly used the word “inevitable” to describe this evolution, and he said that he was considering the possibility that the results of all evolution was predetermined.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> This speaker shows some traits of religiosity while definitely being a part of the “scientific elite”, given his academic achievements (he was a professor of evolutionary palaeobiology at Cambridge).<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> This breaks down the version of the deficit model that paints religiosity, and even (to an extent) creationism as the common people who the scientists must educate. The audience used the question and answers to gain further information about the lecture, which is a more active involvement than the deficit model usually depicts. The deficit model and Snow’s two culture models do not seem to apply neatly to the two lectures discussed. Wilson’s lecture featured a dialogue with the audience, dirtying the deficit model, and he occupied both the scientific and literary fields of academia simultaneously, working poorly with Snow’s Two Cultures proposition. The lecture represents somewhat of a reversal from much of history: the interpretation of religion in the light of evolution, rather than interpreting evolutionary thought in the light of religion. Morris’ presentation gives a modern take on religious interpretation of evolutionary theory: an attempt to potentially merge evolutionary thought with religious thought, rather than an attempt to subdue evolutionary thought with religion. Morris’ talk was much more religious than his contemporaries would have made it, despite being a scientist, which deflates the notion that religion can be used as a stand in for lay people in the deficit model. The presence of both speakers presenting in a very public forum in front of a mixed secular and religious audience is an example of the evolutionary and religious groups continuing to coexist in the modern day. The students of Southwestern University published several responses to the Symposium shortly after the event. Their opinions were somewhat mixed, with some viewing the event with reverence and others with complete disregard. One student, William Thomas referred to it as an “eye-opening opportunity” that can “broaden their field of knowledge” in his article “The question: Class or Brown Symposium'' in which he advocates for students to be allowed to attend future Symposiums instead of class.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> In addition, some students seemed to resent the way the symposium approached the topic of Religion and Science, wanting it to focus more on science that backs up the validity of religion. In his article “God vs. science duke it out at SU, neither win,” Andrew Dornon stated that “The point of academia is to promote truth and the dismantling of false paradigms, such as racism and sexism. So why not religion?”, and called the lack of scientific proof of religion the ignored “pink elephant in the room”.<a href="#_ftn24">[24]</a> This stance was also represented in the question and answer section of the symposium (in which every speaker is gathered), in a question that asked why religious scientists don’t apply scientific principles to religion.<a href="#_ftn25">[25]</a> Interestingly, Morris and Wilson both had a response to the question, with Morris pointing out that science doesn’t have the answer to all questions, giving religion some usefulness in that regard, while Wilson pointed out that science was not a “value system” on its own, while religion can provide a value system.<a href="#_ftn26">[26]</a> The conflict between religion and evolution continues, and has been imortalized in Southwestern history. Andrew Dornon put it accurately when he said “neither God nor science won at Southwestern.”<a href="#_ftn27">[27]</a> In the question and answer section of Wilson’s talk, this conflict came to light somewhat and was abruptly cut short by time without finding a clear resolution. There is seemingly an anxiety around taking evolutionary theories and thinking too far: issuing a direct challenge to religion, specifically Christian religion. While most agree that the Genesis account of the creation of life as we know it isn’t literally what happened, people seem to become upset and challenged when it is suggested that biblical events didn’t happen. Some people, namely atheists such as Dornon seem very keen to push the issue as far as they can, perhaps in hopes of winning some ideological battles. So it remains that evolutionary theories can be used together with religious thought (as in Morris’ presentation), it can also still be seen as an affront to them (as in the crowd’s reaction to Wilson’s presentation). Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nancy Scott Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> “Theory of Evolution.” National Geographic Society, June 5, 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/theory-evolution/. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Singham, Mano. God vs. Darwin: the War between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom (Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Education, 2011), vii <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> “Creationism.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., March 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/topic/creationism. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> “Teaching Evolution: A State-by-State Debate.” NPR. NPR, December 21, 2005. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630737. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Zabarenko, Deborah. “Tennessee Teacher Law Could Boost Creationism, Climate Denial.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, April 13, 2012. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> “Teaching Evolution: A State-by-State Debate.” NPR. NPR, December 21, 2005. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Mangahas, Ana Marie E. “Perceptions of High School Biology Teachers in Christian Schools on Relationships Between Religious Beliefs and Teaching Evolution.” Journal of Research on Christian Education 26, no. 1 (January 2017): 24 <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, November 30, 2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-30-schools-creationism_N.htm. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, November 30, 2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-30-schools-creationism_N.htm. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Snow, C. P. (Charles Percy), 1905-1980. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. New York :Cambridge University Press, 1959., 87-88 <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “A Historical Perspective on Science and Its ‘Others.’” ISIS 100, no. 2 (June 2009): 361. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/599547 <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, “A Historical Perspective on Science and Its ‘Others.”, 365 <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Nieto-Galan, Agusti. Science in the Public Sphere. (Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge, 2016), 3 <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Wilson, David Sloan. “Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion.” Lecture, The Brown Symposium XXXI, Georgetown, February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Morris, Simon Conway. “Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation.” Lecture,The Brown Symposium XXXI, Georgetown, February 5, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Thomas, William. “The Question: Class or Brown Symposium.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref24">[24]</a> Dornon, Andrew. “God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref25">[25]</a> Newberg, Andrew, Simon C Morris, Mary E Tucker, David S Wilson, Christian Lavigne, Christopher Bader, and Paul Froese. “Panel Discussion.” Brown Symposium XXXI. February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref26">[26]</a> Newberg, Andrew, Simon C Morris, Mary E Tucker, David S Wilson, Christian Lavigne, Christopher Bader, and Paul Froese. “Panel Discussion.” Brown Symposium XXXI. February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref27">[27]</a> Dornon, Andrew. “God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Question: Class or Brown Symposium Subject The topic of the resource The Brown Symposium XXXI Description An account of the resource Discussion around class times running at the same time as the Brown Symposium, covering multiple viewpoints. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource William Thomas Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Megaphone, school newspaper of Southwestern University. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Megaphone. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Feburary 12, 2009 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Physical Newspaper Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Opinion Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context The Brown Symposium XXXI https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/bac47e9b3298be7540ad3dea81c8c107.png a1cc631548f18dc15f7d9cd7dbe0700b Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Faculty Club Meets Subject The topic of the resource News Description An account of the resource In 1921 at the faculty club meeting, Dr. William Davidson presented a scholarly review of John Watson’s “Psychology From the Viewpoint of The Behaviorist” Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Akin, Henry D. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Texas History Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Jan 25, 1921 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Open Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource News Article Language A language of the resource English https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/8b6626919baee8fbe57c827895f5fd10.jpg 0f3ab527643fde5a00fe4d6cc0bb0044 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History and Discourse Around Evolution at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource The theory of evolution proposes that life changed and diversified over time through a process known as natural selection, in which organisms who are better suited to survive outreproduce and outlast other organisms.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> The main ideology that opposes evolutionary theory goes under the monikers “creationism”, “creation science”, or “intelligent design”.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> They claim that life was created in it’s final form, usually by a god.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Religion has always been somewhat at odds with evolution, which is a natural occurrence resulting from the lack of any mention of evolution in the Bible and other holy texts. The rejection of evolution by much of the religious public seems to be on the decline in recent years, however, with the introduction of new theories that allow aspects of creationism to be conserved while still accepting evolutionary thought. But as the principles behind evolution are brought to other fields, some of that tension seems to be resurfacing as people look for evolutionary perspectives that allow them to keep their faith intact. These effects were put on display at Southwestern University in 2009, with the discourse at times returning to an ideological battle. The split between scientists and the lay people can be seen in the conflict between followers of evolution and creationism, with a major battleground for them being the rules around what is taught in public schools. Evolution has slowly replaced creationism in US public schools, but never in every state at once, and with uniformity within states.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> In many instances teachers are not allowed to speak out against creationism while teaching evolution, and are allowed to frame them as “alternatives” to each other without taking a clear side.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> Many of the decisions are handled on the state level.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> In addition, teacher religious beliefs have been found to be predictive of their willingness to teach evolution.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> For example, in 2007, Texas Education Agency’s Director of Science Curriculum, Christine Comer was forced to resign from her position after asking an anti-creationism speaker to speak at the school.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> The Texas Education Agency explained that she had made it look like the TEA had taken a side on the evolution debate when they intended to remain neutral.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> This example (which occured around two years before the Brown Symposium discussed in this paper) hilights that the “war” had yet to be won by the other side, and that battles were still being fought. In CP Snow’s lecture the Two Cultures, he says that academia has been fractured along the lines of “scientists' ' and “literary intellectuals” <a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a>. This makes sense in light of the increasing knowledge gap between scientists and others caused by specialization of science<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> . In a way, Snow describes a deficit model, in which the scientists are separated not only from the general public, but also from other intellectuals from outside their field. But as we will see, the deficit model is not always accurate to reality. As said by Bensaude-Vincent, “notions such as “lay public” and “science mediators’ are historical constructions rather than stable categories”<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a>. The “deficit model”, depicts the public as having a deficit of scientific knowledge and somewhat helpless, requiring the help of enlightened scientists to guide them to knowledge.<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> While it is easy to view the issue of evolution as seen by the public along the lines of the deficit model, with the evolutionists representing the scientists, and the ignorant and the religious representing the lay public, that is a reductionist view that ignores many of the nuances of reality. In 2009, two speakers spoke about evolution and religion at Southwestern University. One speaker was David Sloan Wilson, with his talk “ Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion”.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> His talk revolved around the use of evolution as a model for the development of Religion.<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> He pointed out how the “survival tactics” of religious groups often mimicked the behavior of different species of animals in the wild, by cooperating with group members, and at times being hostile towards other, competing groups.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> He described this as emerging from a type of “evolution”, not of species, but of ideas behind religion.<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> His insistence that religions were entirely human ideas gathered some dissent from the audience, with two (out of four) questions having to do with his claims against the “engaged god hypothesis”, or whether there is an active god.<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> This can be seen as a case of the popularization of science being done in a way that alienates the people it was attempting to reach. This plays into the version of the deficit model that depicts the evolutionist attempting to reach the religious masses, who reject him (at least in part) due to finding parts of his message offensive. But it can also be seen as an incident of a dialogue being had between the two worlds, something unexpected in the deficit model, in which communication is only necessary in the direction of scientist to layperson. The other speaker on evolution was Simon Conway Morris, who spoke on a religious view of evolution, describing an “alternate look between Darwin and Creationism”.<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> In “Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation”, he spoke at length about convergent evolution, which is the evolution of two unrelated species arriving at a point in which the species are very similar in form.<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> He repeatedly used the word “inevitable” to describe this evolution, and he said that he was considering the possibility that the results of all evolution was predetermined.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> This speaker shows some traits of religiosity while definitely being a part of the “scientific elite”, given his academic achievements (he was a professor of evolutionary palaeobiology at Cambridge).<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> This breaks down the version of the deficit model that paints religiosity, and even (to an extent) creationism as the common people who the scientists must educate. The audience used the question and answers to gain further information about the lecture, which is a more active involvement than the deficit model usually depicts. The deficit model and Snow’s two culture models do not seem to apply neatly to the two lectures discussed. Wilson’s lecture featured a dialogue with the audience, dirtying the deficit model, and he occupied both the scientific and literary fields of academia simultaneously, working poorly with Snow’s Two Cultures proposition. The lecture represents somewhat of a reversal from much of history: the interpretation of religion in the light of evolution, rather than interpreting evolutionary thought in the light of religion. Morris’ presentation gives a modern take on religious interpretation of evolutionary theory: an attempt to potentially merge evolutionary thought with religious thought, rather than an attempt to subdue evolutionary thought with religion. Morris’ talk was much more religious than his contemporaries would have made it, despite being a scientist, which deflates the notion that religion can be used as a stand in for lay people in the deficit model. The presence of both speakers presenting in a very public forum in front of a mixed secular and religious audience is an example of the evolutionary and religious groups continuing to coexist in the modern day. The students of Southwestern University published several responses to the Symposium shortly after the event. Their opinions were somewhat mixed, with some viewing the event with reverence and others with complete disregard. One student, William Thomas referred to it as an “eye-opening opportunity” that can “broaden their field of knowledge” in his article “The question: Class or Brown Symposium'' in which he advocates for students to be allowed to attend future Symposiums instead of class.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> In addition, some students seemed to resent the way the symposium approached the topic of Religion and Science, wanting it to focus more on science that backs up the validity of religion. In his article “God vs. science duke it out at SU, neither win,” Andrew Dornon stated that “The point of academia is to promote truth and the dismantling of false paradigms, such as racism and sexism. So why not religion?”, and called the lack of scientific proof of religion the ignored “pink elephant in the room”.<a href="#_ftn24">[24]</a> This stance was also represented in the question and answer section of the symposium (in which every speaker is gathered), in a question that asked why religious scientists don’t apply scientific principles to religion.<a href="#_ftn25">[25]</a> Interestingly, Morris and Wilson both had a response to the question, with Morris pointing out that science doesn’t have the answer to all questions, giving religion some usefulness in that regard, while Wilson pointed out that science was not a “value system” on its own, while religion can provide a value system.<a href="#_ftn26">[26]</a> The conflict between religion and evolution continues, and has been imortalized in Southwestern history. Andrew Dornon put it accurately when he said “neither God nor science won at Southwestern.”<a href="#_ftn27">[27]</a> In the question and answer section of Wilson’s talk, this conflict came to light somewhat and was abruptly cut short by time without finding a clear resolution. There is seemingly an anxiety around taking evolutionary theories and thinking too far: issuing a direct challenge to religion, specifically Christian religion. While most agree that the Genesis account of the creation of life as we know it isn’t literally what happened, people seem to become upset and challenged when it is suggested that biblical events didn’t happen. Some people, namely atheists such as Dornon seem very keen to push the issue as far as they can, perhaps in hopes of winning some ideological battles. So it remains that evolutionary theories can be used together with religious thought (as in Morris’ presentation), it can also still be seen as an affront to them (as in the crowd’s reaction to Wilson’s presentation). Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nancy Scott Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> “Theory of Evolution.” National Geographic Society, June 5, 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/theory-evolution/. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Singham, Mano. God vs. Darwin: the War between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom (Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Education, 2011), vii <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> “Creationism.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., March 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/topic/creationism. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> “Teaching Evolution: A State-by-State Debate.” NPR. NPR, December 21, 2005. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630737. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Zabarenko, Deborah. “Tennessee Teacher Law Could Boost Creationism, Climate Denial.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, April 13, 2012. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> “Teaching Evolution: A State-by-State Debate.” NPR. NPR, December 21, 2005. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Mangahas, Ana Marie E. “Perceptions of High School Biology Teachers in Christian Schools on Relationships Between Religious Beliefs and Teaching Evolution.” Journal of Research on Christian Education 26, no. 1 (January 2017): 24 <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, November 30, 2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-30-schools-creationism_N.htm. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, November 30, 2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-30-schools-creationism_N.htm. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Snow, C. P. (Charles Percy), 1905-1980. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. New York :Cambridge University Press, 1959., 87-88 <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “A Historical Perspective on Science and Its ‘Others.’” ISIS 100, no. 2 (June 2009): 361. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/599547 <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, “A Historical Perspective on Science and Its ‘Others.”, 365 <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Nieto-Galan, Agusti. Science in the Public Sphere. (Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge, 2016), 3 <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Wilson, David Sloan. “Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion.” Lecture, The Brown Symposium XXXI, Georgetown, February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Morris, Simon Conway. “Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation.” Lecture,The Brown Symposium XXXI, Georgetown, February 5, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Thomas, William. “The Question: Class or Brown Symposium.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref24">[24]</a> Dornon, Andrew. “God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref25">[25]</a> Newberg, Andrew, Simon C Morris, Mary E Tucker, David S Wilson, Christian Lavigne, Christopher Bader, and Paul Froese. “Panel Discussion.” Brown Symposium XXXI. February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref26">[26]</a> Newberg, Andrew, Simon C Morris, Mary E Tucker, David S Wilson, Christian Lavigne, Christopher Bader, and Paul Froese. “Panel Discussion.” Brown Symposium XXXI. February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref27">[27]</a> Dornon, Andrew. “God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win Subject The topic of the resource The Brown Symposium XXXI Description An account of the resource Discussion of the “battle” between religion and atheism at the Brown Symposium XXXI. The author is seemingly more critical of religion. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Andrew Dornon Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Megaphone, school newspaper of Southwestern University. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Megaphone. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Feburary 12, 2009 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Physical Newspaper Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Opinion Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History and Discourse Around Evolution at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource The theory of evolution proposes that life changed and diversified over time through a process known as natural selection, in which organisms who are better suited to survive outreproduce and outlast other organisms.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> The main ideology that opposes evolutionary theory goes under the monikers “creationism”, “creation science”, or “intelligent design”.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> They claim that life was created in it’s final form, usually by a god.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Religion has always been somewhat at odds with evolution, which is a natural occurrence resulting from the lack of any mention of evolution in the Bible and other holy texts. The rejection of evolution by much of the religious public seems to be on the decline in recent years, however, with the introduction of new theories that allow aspects of creationism to be conserved while still accepting evolutionary thought. But as the principles behind evolution are brought to other fields, some of that tension seems to be resurfacing as people look for evolutionary perspectives that allow them to keep their faith intact. These effects were put on display at Southwestern University in 2009, with the discourse at times returning to an ideological battle. The split between scientists and the lay people can be seen in the conflict between followers of evolution and creationism, with a major battleground for them being the rules around what is taught in public schools. Evolution has slowly replaced creationism in US public schools, but never in every state at once, and with uniformity within states.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> In many instances teachers are not allowed to speak out against creationism while teaching evolution, and are allowed to frame them as “alternatives” to each other without taking a clear side.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> Many of the decisions are handled on the state level.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> In addition, teacher religious beliefs have been found to be predictive of their willingness to teach evolution.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> For example, in 2007, Texas Education Agency’s Director of Science Curriculum, Christine Comer was forced to resign from her position after asking an anti-creationism speaker to speak at the school.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> The Texas Education Agency explained that she had made it look like the TEA had taken a side on the evolution debate when they intended to remain neutral.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> This example (which occured around two years before the Brown Symposium discussed in this paper) hilights that the “war” had yet to be won by the other side, and that battles were still being fought. In CP Snow’s lecture the Two Cultures, he says that academia has been fractured along the lines of “scientists' ' and “literary intellectuals” <a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a>. This makes sense in light of the increasing knowledge gap between scientists and others caused by specialization of science<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> . In a way, Snow describes a deficit model, in which the scientists are separated not only from the general public, but also from other intellectuals from outside their field. But as we will see, the deficit model is not always accurate to reality. As said by Bensaude-Vincent, “notions such as “lay public” and “science mediators’ are historical constructions rather than stable categories”<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a>. The “deficit model”, depicts the public as having a deficit of scientific knowledge and somewhat helpless, requiring the help of enlightened scientists to guide them to knowledge.<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> While it is easy to view the issue of evolution as seen by the public along the lines of the deficit model, with the evolutionists representing the scientists, and the ignorant and the religious representing the lay public, that is a reductionist view that ignores many of the nuances of reality. In 2009, two speakers spoke about evolution and religion at Southwestern University. One speaker was David Sloan Wilson, with his talk “ Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion”.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> His talk revolved around the use of evolution as a model for the development of Religion.<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> He pointed out how the “survival tactics” of religious groups often mimicked the behavior of different species of animals in the wild, by cooperating with group members, and at times being hostile towards other, competing groups.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> He described this as emerging from a type of “evolution”, not of species, but of ideas behind religion.<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> His insistence that religions were entirely human ideas gathered some dissent from the audience, with two (out of four) questions having to do with his claims against the “engaged god hypothesis”, or whether there is an active god.<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> This can be seen as a case of the popularization of science being done in a way that alienates the people it was attempting to reach. This plays into the version of the deficit model that depicts the evolutionist attempting to reach the religious masses, who reject him (at least in part) due to finding parts of his message offensive. But it can also be seen as an incident of a dialogue being had between the two worlds, something unexpected in the deficit model, in which communication is only necessary in the direction of scientist to layperson. The other speaker on evolution was Simon Conway Morris, who spoke on a religious view of evolution, describing an “alternate look between Darwin and Creationism”.<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> In “Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation”, he spoke at length about convergent evolution, which is the evolution of two unrelated species arriving at a point in which the species are very similar in form.<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> He repeatedly used the word “inevitable” to describe this evolution, and he said that he was considering the possibility that the results of all evolution was predetermined.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> This speaker shows some traits of religiosity while definitely being a part of the “scientific elite”, given his academic achievements (he was a professor of evolutionary palaeobiology at Cambridge).<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> This breaks down the version of the deficit model that paints religiosity, and even (to an extent) creationism as the common people who the scientists must educate. The audience used the question and answers to gain further information about the lecture, which is a more active involvement than the deficit model usually depicts. The deficit model and Snow’s two culture models do not seem to apply neatly to the two lectures discussed. Wilson’s lecture featured a dialogue with the audience, dirtying the deficit model, and he occupied both the scientific and literary fields of academia simultaneously, working poorly with Snow’s Two Cultures proposition. The lecture represents somewhat of a reversal from much of history: the interpretation of religion in the light of evolution, rather than interpreting evolutionary thought in the light of religion. Morris’ presentation gives a modern take on religious interpretation of evolutionary theory: an attempt to potentially merge evolutionary thought with religious thought, rather than an attempt to subdue evolutionary thought with religion. Morris’ talk was much more religious than his contemporaries would have made it, despite being a scientist, which deflates the notion that religion can be used as a stand in for lay people in the deficit model. The presence of both speakers presenting in a very public forum in front of a mixed secular and religious audience is an example of the evolutionary and religious groups continuing to coexist in the modern day. The students of Southwestern University published several responses to the Symposium shortly after the event. Their opinions were somewhat mixed, with some viewing the event with reverence and others with complete disregard. One student, William Thomas referred to it as an “eye-opening opportunity” that can “broaden their field of knowledge” in his article “The question: Class or Brown Symposium'' in which he advocates for students to be allowed to attend future Symposiums instead of class.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> In addition, some students seemed to resent the way the symposium approached the topic of Religion and Science, wanting it to focus more on science that backs up the validity of religion. In his article “God vs. science duke it out at SU, neither win,” Andrew Dornon stated that “The point of academia is to promote truth and the dismantling of false paradigms, such as racism and sexism. So why not religion?”, and called the lack of scientific proof of religion the ignored “pink elephant in the room”.<a href="#_ftn24">[24]</a> This stance was also represented in the question and answer section of the symposium (in which every speaker is gathered), in a question that asked why religious scientists don’t apply scientific principles to religion.<a href="#_ftn25">[25]</a> Interestingly, Morris and Wilson both had a response to the question, with Morris pointing out that science doesn’t have the answer to all questions, giving religion some usefulness in that regard, while Wilson pointed out that science was not a “value system” on its own, while religion can provide a value system.<a href="#_ftn26">[26]</a> The conflict between religion and evolution continues, and has been imortalized in Southwestern history. Andrew Dornon put it accurately when he said “neither God nor science won at Southwestern.”<a href="#_ftn27">[27]</a> In the question and answer section of Wilson’s talk, this conflict came to light somewhat and was abruptly cut short by time without finding a clear resolution. There is seemingly an anxiety around taking evolutionary theories and thinking too far: issuing a direct challenge to religion, specifically Christian religion. While most agree that the Genesis account of the creation of life as we know it isn’t literally what happened, people seem to become upset and challenged when it is suggested that biblical events didn’t happen. Some people, namely atheists such as Dornon seem very keen to push the issue as far as they can, perhaps in hopes of winning some ideological battles. So it remains that evolutionary theories can be used together with religious thought (as in Morris’ presentation), it can also still be seen as an affront to them (as in the crowd’s reaction to Wilson’s presentation). Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nancy Scott Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> “Theory of Evolution.” National Geographic Society, June 5, 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/theory-evolution/. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Singham, Mano. God vs. Darwin: the War between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom (Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Education, 2011), vii <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> “Creationism.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., March 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/topic/creationism. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> “Teaching Evolution: A State-by-State Debate.” NPR. NPR, December 21, 2005. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630737. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Zabarenko, Deborah. “Tennessee Teacher Law Could Boost Creationism, Climate Denial.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, April 13, 2012. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> “Teaching Evolution: A State-by-State Debate.” NPR. NPR, December 21, 2005. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Mangahas, Ana Marie E. “Perceptions of High School Biology Teachers in Christian Schools on Relationships Between Religious Beliefs and Teaching Evolution.” Journal of Research on Christian Education 26, no. 1 (January 2017): 24 <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, November 30, 2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-30-schools-creationism_N.htm. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, November 30, 2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-30-schools-creationism_N.htm. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Snow, C. P. (Charles Percy), 1905-1980. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. New York :Cambridge University Press, 1959., 87-88 <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “A Historical Perspective on Science and Its ‘Others.’” ISIS 100, no. 2 (June 2009): 361. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/599547 <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, “A Historical Perspective on Science and Its ‘Others.”, 365 <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Nieto-Galan, Agusti. Science in the Public Sphere. (Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge, 2016), 3 <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Wilson, David Sloan. “Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion.” Lecture, The Brown Symposium XXXI, Georgetown, February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Morris, Simon Conway. “Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation.” Lecture,The Brown Symposium XXXI, Georgetown, February 5, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Thomas, William. “The Question: Class or Brown Symposium.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref24">[24]</a> Dornon, Andrew. “God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref25">[25]</a> Newberg, Andrew, Simon C Morris, Mary E Tucker, David S Wilson, Christian Lavigne, Christopher Bader, and Paul Froese. “Panel Discussion.” Brown Symposium XXXI. February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref26">[26]</a> Newberg, Andrew, Simon C Morris, Mary E Tucker, David S Wilson, Christian Lavigne, Christopher Bader, and Paul Froese. “Panel Discussion.” Brown Symposium XXXI. February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref27">[27]</a> Dornon, Andrew. “God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Panel Discussion of Brown Symposium XXXI Subject The topic of the resource Science And Religion: Conflict Or Convergence? Description An account of the resource Guest speakers from the Brown Symposium XXXI answer questions posed by the Southwestern University community. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Andrew Newberg, Simon C Morris, Mary E Tucker, David S Wilson, Christian Lavigne, Christopher Bader, and Paul Froese Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Brown Symposium XXXI Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Southwestern University Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource February 6, 2009 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource DVD recording Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Educational Discussion https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/a291f7f679ff4e0f5d60fa18b0de5c98.png ff62c66c0e1b0246363c6c8d70416388 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Subject The topic of the resource AIDS at Southwestern Description An account of the resource While many universities have a responsibility to educate their students in practicing medicine, they all have the responsibility to provide medicine. The set of services present in a student health center on college campuses has evolved enormously, primarily due to new discoveries in the field of medicine as well as changes in the social dynamics of the United States. Putting Southwestern University in the context of the historical development of medicine and social justice establishes the university as an institution willing to acquiesce to change and generally providing the best possible resources for its students. Southwestern is also communicative and responsive to medical developments that best benefit its health services. A very current issue related to the development of medicine is the outbreak of the coronavirus (COVID-19) and the changes being made everywhere to try to control the pandemic. Southwestern University officially moved the Spring 2020 semester to distance learning on March 19th, with school services (including the health center) being provided remotely. Southwestern’s response to this presently evolving case opens up questions to historically similar situations. The best way to historically observe Southwestern’s measures for adjusting to social change and developing needs of students is through the university’s handling of the HIV/AIDS crisis during the 1980s and 1990s. Over time, there has been a significant improvement in treatment in the sphere of sexual health on college campuses in the United States. Beginning under the euphemism of “social hygiene,” prevention and treatment of sexual health issues on college campuses began during the World War II era. Due to the increasing number of women attending college as well as evolving degrees of sex positivity and freedom, treatments for sexual health became less taboo and conversations became more open. Since college campus demographics are mostly made up of young people, this movement could be seen in American universities. Unfortunately, one side of this conversation is significantly less positive than others. The outbreak of HIV/AIDS raised questions about health that were never explored before, notably regarding the nature of the epidemic and how separate groups could be disproportionally affected by disease. AIDS, formally known as acquired immune deficiency syndrome, emerged as a “leading cause of death among young adults in the United States” in the 1980s. Somewhat surprisingly, college students attending school at the height of the HIV scare were a relatively low-risk group, to use the terminology of the time, for contracting the virus. This was due in part to the proportion of heterosexual students to non-heterosexual students, since the primary reason that heterosexual adults would be at risk was associated with conditions of poverty. Therefore, most students of universities were “not in sexual networks that will include a significant proportion of heterosexual partners who have HIV.” This is not to say that a low risk level meant no action was taken. In a conference held at Southwestern regarding the outbreak, assistant professor of sociology Edward L. Kain emphasized the impact that diseases could have on a population, and warned against developing an “us vs. them” mentality. Kain made it clear that just because you “don’t fall into a high risk group, it doesn’t mean you’re not going to get it.” The low-risk environment of college campuses could be partially attributed to the response universities had to the outbreak in terms of education and prevention. Once information about the issue became more accessible and de-stigmatized, many institutions developed non-discriminatory policies towards students with HIV, experimented with peer education programs, and implemented risk assessment in health centers. It also became essential to prevent the spread of misinformation and harmful rumors. Edward Kain discussed this problem through research he conducted with his sociology students at the time of the outbreak. He concluded that rumors are born from panic, created to fill in gaps where knowledge is lacking. Kain found this to be important because the public’s attitude towards AIDS would “determine how effectively the disease is treated medically and educationally.” It was of great consequence that the knowledge cultivated by a community (in this case, Southwestern University) was accurate and easily transmitted to the public. Since the sole purpose of a university’s health center is to make medical knowledge and practice readily available to its students, the AIDS epidemic is an appropriate lens through which to assess Southwestern’s care of its students. At the height of the epidemic (and once it had become clear that this was a health threat that went beyond sexual orientation), it became vital for universities to “sponsor programs that inform students about the disease and advocate for measures to prevent transmission of the virus.” While there are no records indicating the presence of HIV antibody testing on campus at Southwestern, a 1987 issue of the Megaphone contains an article written by health center employee Jan Pickett about the issue of testing. The article gives general information regarding the importance of at-risk individuals being tested, what a test entails, and various locations and phone numbers of testing institutions. Pickett notes the importance of practicing safe sex and adopting any changes necessary to protect from the virus, making it clear that receiving a negative test result is not protection in and of itself. Additionally, there is an issue of the Megaphone published the year prior containing an article titled “Let’s talk about AIDS.” The article not only gives basic information on the AIDS crisis, but it also announces a panel discussion to take place on campus in which professionals with broad knowledge and perspective on the issue would inform students and answer questions. The panel was to include a nurse specialist, the director of the Austin AIDS Project, the Deputy Director of the Williamson County Health Department, and an AIDS patient. This event especially showcases Southwestern’s willingness to adapt and provide necessary aid to its students. In tandem with societal attitudes of the time, mentions of the gay liberation movement or the AIDS epidemic in the 1970s and 1980s in Southwestern publications were made with a tendency towards anonymity. The aforementioned article by Jan Pickett emphasizes locations for anonymous testing and promises to protect the secrecy of students visiting her office for HIV/AIDS-related questions. The first article found in the Megaphone that directly discusses the gay rights movement is from 1973, titled “Suppressed Minority: A Concerned Student Speaks Out.” The anonymous student writes to the readers, pleading for equality and understanding on campus and implying that they had faced discrimination while attending Southwestern. Therefore, it would appear it was not until the mid-to-late 1980s and the breakout of AIDS that homosexuality became a topic of sincere conversation on Southwestern campus and something under the eye of health services. The health center, in this case, acts as a middleman in the transmission of medical knowledge, though in some cases more quickly and effectively than in others. While it can be assumed that those employed within the health center are aptly qualified for their position, the changing nature of medicine requires communication of knowledge both within the field and beyond it. The evolving breadth of services provided and medical standards of the student body at Southwestern implies that this communication has been constantly occurring throughout the school’s history, as shown through samples of blank student health records from 2004 and 2018 (actual student records are not attainable due to confidentiality), requiring more and more immunizations and stamps of approval from physicians prior to attending the university. Since Southwestern does not have its own practice of medical research, discoveries, treatments, and anything else that could benefit the student body is presumably acquired from outside, credible sources. The university has done its part to remain up to date on medical developments and has adjusted its policies accordingly The history of medicine, and more specifically of medicine on college campuses, reveals a great deal about the nature of social dynamics both within a student body and within the institution itself. The liberal arts environment of Southwestern has lent to its increasingly open attitude towards change in social justice, and the relationship between these changes and medical issues can be observed through the history of health services. There have been areas in which the university’s health center has found itself behind the times, such as in the case of the delay in providing women’s health services. But otherwise, there has been a general urgency to keep up with the evolving medical needs of students. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Elaine Goulden Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource May 8, 2020 Language A language of the resource English Title A name given to the resource Community in Crisis: Southwestern and the AIDS Epidemic Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Barrera, Martha. “Let’s talk about AIDS,” The Megaphone, January 30, 1986, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634603/. Cohen, Elliot D., and Michael Davis, eds. AIDS: Crisis in Professional Ethics. Temple University Press, 1994. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14bt3gc. Franki, Marie. “Health Services adds new doctors,” The Megaphone, September 21, 2006, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634759/. “Health Record,” Form. Georgetown, TX: Southwestern University, Special Collections, May 2004. Pickett, Jan. “Living Well at Southwestern,” The Megaphone, October 30, 1987, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634509/. Rollins, Laura. “AIDS: from SU to the World,” Williamson County Sun, November 14, 1987, 12. “Southwestern seminar eyes AIDS and society,” Williamson County Sun, November 1, 1987. “Student Health Record,” Form. Georgetown, TX: Southwestern University, Special Collections, 2018. “Suppressed Minority: A Concerned Student Speaks Out,” The Megaphone, May 4, 1973, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634200/. Turner, H. Spencer, and Janet L. Hurley, eds. The History and Practice of College Health. University Press of Kentucky, 2002. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt130j9xw. Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634200/m1/1/ Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Suppressed Minority: A Concerned Student Speaks Out Subject The topic of the resource Discrimination against homosexuality at Southwestern Description An account of the resource An anonymous letter from a student detailing the discrimination and ridicule they have faced as a Southwestern student Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Anonymous Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Megaphone Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Portal to Texas History Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource May 4, 1973 Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Newsletter https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/764b4ac5ef8bf44da847002e74cbca88.jpg 38c977ea8ff4c074489375e1b182869c https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/539bd8cb6f256f31f2ce87e6bae00a92.jpg 4aa161257bd06607917fad20a4c0a3dd Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History of Physics at SU Description An account of the resource The Southwestern experience is one that encourages students to explore. We have many courses throughout our time here that are specifically engineered to include multiple ideas from many disciplines, sometimes it even helps us do better in our classes. During my time at SU, my experience with science has been in a class about chocolate, where we explored the chemical properties of chocolate, and a neuroscience class that was extremely open ended. I ended up writing an essay on cognitive processes while someone watched a suspense film and how scene composition can affect us. It has been wildly different from most of the other experiences I have had in science classes and I believe this is pretty unique to Southwestern. Until this class I have had no experience with any physics topics or classes, but a visiting professor’s comments on the science department at Southwestern changed that, and those comments, according to what I have found, helped shape not only the physics department, but the whole of SU into what it is today. The Cold War and a worldwide paranoia helped shape Dr. Seeger’s suggestions into how the department could prepare their students for a uniquely uncertain future. This uncertainty prompted the physics department to become more crystallized, and this report probably encouraged the administration to change other curriculums to be more paideia focused, so the history of physics at SU is much more interesting than many would think. War, paranoia and its proliferation of physics changed SU in the late 60s into what I know it as today. During the Sputnik era, President During Fleming announced a program to expand the schools endowment to 15 million from 8 million and increase staff and student enrollment<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>. The University wanted to bring on more specialized staff members for more different classes and disciplines, as well as give students better opportunities for more doctorate degrees<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>. Also there is a very clear dichotomy between the science and mathematics department and the fine arts department. All of the suggestions for the sciences suggest a need for students gaining knowledge at an accelerated rate. It says that science students should take an accelerated math course in the beginning of their studies<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a>. However it is specified in the address that more science classes will be available for non science majors and more arts courses available for science majors. This is common today at many colleges. The plan for expansion also talks a little about a flight school for southwestern, which will not only teach classes about the discipline, but actually have them fly planes<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a>. This too feels extremely reactionary and is probably the most indicative that the Cold War is what brought these changes about. In the fine arts, the same suggestions for increased classes and faculties are made, but they also state a move towards more interdepartmental learning<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a>. Interdepartmental learning is one of the tenants of paideia curriculum today. Southwestern University was clearly not immune to the fears during the Cold War and it even created some fairly reactionary ideas that changed the University into what it is today. Science, no matter how crystallized it can get, will never operate in a vacuum. Dr. Raymond J. Seeger’s report to the President of the University was not much different from the universities later plans but it has a key difference, he suggests that the introductory science courses should be brought more into the realm of science majors so they would not have non science majors filling that class<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a>. This can also show us how faculty and students interacted in the physics department at that time. The students and faculty were meeting frequently, possibly discussing more about material and getting a more holistic view of the class and an all around better education. However this means that those teachers would have been spending less time engaging with and researching for their respective national organizations, like the American Physical Society. Dr. Seeger suggests that each full time staff member should be attending a convention at least once per year, which he believes will not not benefit them and their research, but the student as well<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a>. This would be common for a small school, where almost the entire student body could fit into a physics lecture in a UT auditorium. Dr. Seeger’s comments suggest a need for students and teachers to spend less time outside of the classroom so the teachers can go do independent research on whatever is needed<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a>. During the Cold War, most of that research would have been in some way connected to maintaining a stable nation and keeping it adequately prepared for any threat that might arise<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a>. The timing by which these changes were announced suggests that they are a bit reactionary in nature so therefore I believe they might not have happened at all or they would have happened at the next time of crisis, probably 9/11 which would have seen the proliferation of computer sciences more than physics. Teachers are supposed to prepare their students for and rely information to them about the world outside of the education institutions. By the end of an education track, the student should be well off enough with ideas and skills to be properly prepared for work in a desired field. The Cold War made it very difficult for teachers to prepare their students for the world because no one knew what was going to happen. However the teacher reacts to an event and works through it is going to have a big effect on a student who is trying to learn that discipline. Throughout elementary school, I was taught a very rudimentary form of history that included memorizing dates and knowing very clean little narratives about different events. Good historical analysis was not a part of my curriculum because it was not important to them at that time. In middle school and high school I began to get a more in depth look into history and by way of some very passionate teachers who encouraged me to do my own reading into history, I came to major in history in college. During the Cold War, in a physics education, in Dr. Seeger’s ideal university, the teacher would have spent time at a conference with whatever information and those teachers would have brought back that information to teach to their students<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a>. The students now have this information and the slight jingoism that probably would have come along with it would have encouraged them to pursue that field. The government was also sponsoring a number of different grants for physics graduates to work in labs across the country and teachers would have pushed them to pursue that<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a>. Paranoia tends to make people freeze up, not a lot of time would have been spent on theory in the physics department during this time, and so a clear demarcation of information from the government, to science spheres that interpret it into their work, to students who then study to enter that work, and then the public who can hear about the latest military advancement or invention on the news. Physics has such a unique history because it accelerated so fast in the 20th century with both world wars and really seems to lack a strong connection between the elite and the public sphere. I believe that SU has adjusted well. The Cold War prompted a lot of drastic changes and is probably what led to a series of plans that turned the university into what it is today. Physics is vital to understanding our world and creating things that can be used. The need for physics and other applied sciences outside of Southwestern is at least partly responsible for Southwestern University in its current form. The timing by which these changes were announced suggests that they are a bit reactionary in nature so therefore i believe they might not have happened at all or the would have happened at the next time of crisis, probably 9/11 The stereotypical view of physics is one that looks like a massive auditorium filled with students bored to tears as a professor writes endless symbols and numbers down on a board. Even worse than a bored student is a scared student, who would not dare ask a question for fear of a number of things that any shy student can imagine. When there is a disconnect between scientific spheres and the public spheres, images like this arise and create no path for communication between the two. The history of physics at Southwestern creates a much nicer and more open picture of science. One in which most of the time students and teachers move separate spheres of knowledge instead of locked into concentric circles of knowledge. If war had not dominated the 20th century, what would physics be like, would southwestern have changed as well? I do not have the slightest idea but I’m sure the changes would be drastic. War, paranoia and its proliferation of physics changed SU in the late 60s into what I know it as today. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nicholas Shanning Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> The Megaphone, Vol. 59, No. 15, Ed. 1 Tuesday, February 1, newspaper, Georgetown, Texas, (1966) pg. 1. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> The Megaphone, (1966). 1. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> The Megaphone, 5 <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> The Megaphone, 5 <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> The Megaphone, 5 <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Raymond J. Seeger, Report to President Durwood Fleming Southwestern University on the Science and Mathematics Program.(1966) 1. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Raymond J. Seeger, Report. 1966: 2. <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Raymond J. Seeger, Report. 1966: 2. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> Kaiser, David. "Cold War Requisitions.” (2002): 136 <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Raymond J. Seeger, Report. 1966: 2. <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Kaiser, David. "Cold War Requisitions.” (2002): 137 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Where is Southwestern Headed?: Changes Will Realize Academic Goals Subject The topic of the resource An essay by Barry Browne in the Megaphone about the changes Southwestern will be making to the curriculums in the future Description An account of the resource The president of the University recently announced some changes that would be taking effect soon on the school and this students is explaining what they are to the readers of the newspaper. It lists both the financial and educational goals of the University Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Barry Browne Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Megaphone, Vol. 59, No. 15, Ed. 1 Tuesday, February 1, 1966, pp. 1,3. Georgetown, Texas, Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource February 1, 1966 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/93b56b2ad3fa7f9c05a2f421518b02cb.jpg 94fb5fd0189596835cbd8b937af5627e https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/a0c909296acd5568ac2d0a39ce9d3612.jpg 33d3b710449091d473807b3ecd39eb47 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Southwestern and the X-Ray Description An account of the resource The world was changed forever when the X-ray was invented. On November 8th 1895 a German scientist named Wilhelm Rontgen announced his accidental discovery of the X-ray.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> With this discovery he learned how the X-ray could take pictures and see through the less dense tissues such as muscle, skin, and fat. This life saving technology was a monumental discovery but the dispersion of this technology through the state of Texas we can thank Southwestern’s very own Robert Stuart Hyer. X-ray technology was certainly a monumental leap for the scientific world. Many people who have been positively affected by this technology today have very little knowledge of where it all began. The X-ray was discovered by accident by a german scientist named Wilhelm Rontgen.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> This scientist was working with cathode tubes, which later became known for their use with televisions, computers and other scanning systems.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> While working with cathode ray tubes Wilhelm Rontgen happened to notice that these tubes could photograph through objects, and stumbled upon the discovery of the X-ray.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a>4 With a little help from his wife, he was able to take a picture of her hand. This picture showed only her bones and her wedding ring in the picture; with that picture he knew had stumbled upon something big, and worked in secret for roughly six more weeks.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> Wilhelm Rontgen officially announced this discovery on the eighth of November in 1895.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> Immediately after that announcement this discovery took the world by storm and that gave birth to the X-ray. This technology is one that has impacted almost everyone in some way or another. One could even argue that the X-ray has been one of the most beneficial pieces of medical technology. The ability to see ailments and foreign objects beneath the surface of a human or animal is one piece of technology that has saved many lives, and will save many more to come. Despite our reliance on this groundbreaking technology many students and faculty of Southwestern University may not realize the impact their school has had on this incredible technology. Southwestern University enabled this device to flourish in central Texas when they employed a young professor named Robert Hyer. Robert Hyer was born in Oxford, Georgia in 1860.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> When he graduated from highschool he attended Emory College where he earned his A.B. degree with first honors in 1881 and earned his M.A. the following year.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> Immediately upon graduating from Emory University he began traveling to Georgetown, Texas to begin working at Southwestern University.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> Robert Hyer began his teaching career at Southwestern University in 1882 and continued to teach through his regency until he left in 1911.<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> His main subject was physics and his outstanding performance as a teacher and his incredible reputation for his intelligence had gotten him chosen to be the university's regent.<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> He was initially reluctant to assume the position as school regent and this caused him to deny the first offer when he was unknowingly voted as regent.<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> Robert Hyer insisted on continuing his career as a researcher and teacher but the need for a leader to put Southwestern on the right path caused him to eventually accept the position and serve as the school regent from 1897-1911.<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> Robert Hyer was well known throughout Georgetown for his excellent research and also his exceptional abilities as a handyman. These Handyman abilities would come to help with his research with the X-ray, but they were first demonstrated through other interesting acts. Robert Hyer’s house was one of the few houses in all of Georgetown to have indoor plumbing and indoor plumbing because Robert Hyer was able to install it by himself.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> Robert Hyer had mechanical knowledge that he enjoyed applying in order to help the people around him. Robert Hyer also used this knowledge in a way to help out Southwestern University in many ways. One of the first ways he made a large mechanical contribution was with the early installation of a steam heating system in the main building.<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> This installation was intended to be completed by an engineer but Robert Hyer could easily recognize crucial mistakes being made and he took over the operation.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> Robert’s immediate recognition and understanding of mechanical operations was a talent that would continue to help Robert make a significant impact on Southwestern and even the state of Texas. As Robert Hyer was settled into his position as Regent of Southwestern he had dreams of expanding the school to increase the student population. His intentions of growing the student population led him into the design and construction of two Southwestern University buildings. During his time as regent, Mood Hall and the Cullen building were built.<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> These buildings would help with the growth of the student population. Many of us today walk these buildings on a regular basis without giving much thought to the person responsible for a significant amount of growth for this university. While being busy with the construction of buildings throughout Robert Hyer’s regency he continued to teach students. This is a good example of his dedication to teaching students and his love for scientific research. In 1895 word of the X-ray was beginning to get out.<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> The news of this device interested Robert Hyer and led him to attempt his own recreation for the device. Robert Hyer’s mechanical inclination and enjoyment of science would lead him to successfully recreate this device himself. Having such a studious and intelligent professor explore the possibilities for this device would later become a huge benefit for the state of Texas. Immediately after Robert Hyer saw this first X-ray he decided that he could replicate the ame device in his own laboratory at Southwestern.<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> He accomplished this by ordering the more unique parts from a scientific catalog but many of the necessary parts he was able to recreate on his own.<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> With the use of his mechanical knowledge it did not take long for Robert Hyer to recreate a functioning X-ray machine. This recreation of the X-ray made it so Southwestern had one of the only X-ray machines in all of the state of Texas, and this caused many doctors to request help with the use of this machine.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> Many other people would request Help from Robert Hyer and this machine in order to help diagnose broken bones and foreign objects lodged under the skin.<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> The application of this device to the citizens of Williamson County attracted a lot of positive attention. This positive attention earned Robert Hyer a very good reputation with people, this was supported by the fact that he only charged patients the cost of the light bulbs required for the photos.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> These actions show a great deal of dedication to science and selflessness to operate such an important piece of medical technology without any motivation from money. With this application of the X-ray being made available so readily to citizens of Williamson County, it is easy to see how Robert Hyer not only helped the scientific community, but also everyday people. News of these events spread. He began to see visitors regularly stopping by his laboratory to take a look at this new machine.<a href="#_ftn24">[24]</a> Allowing these visitors into his place of work was a great opportunity to allow information of this technology to spread. Allowing complete strangers into his laboratory shows how important this invention was, and also how dedicated Robert Hyer was to demonstrating this information. He saw so many visitors he decided to do an open lecture for this technology; furthermore, he decided to make this lecture completely free for anyone coming to visit.<a href="#_ftn25">[25]</a> This description surely gives a thorough understanding of Robert Hyer’s dedication to the popularization of this science. Soon after applying this technology to patients Robert Hyer would realize that there was a strong need to spread this technology for the health of patients across the country. Robert Hyer took part in spreading this knowledge with the use of several methods. The most popular method he used to spread information on this topic was to hold public lectures at Southwestern University.<a href="#_ftn26">[26]</a> These public lectures were a very successful way in teaching the community the benefit in this technology, these lectures were also free for all in attendance.<a href="#_ftn27">[27]</a> With the success of these public lectures Robert Hyer saw a good opportunity to travel and spread this knowledge to further areas, this plan only happened once as it proved to be too much of a burden to be sustainable.<a href="#_ftn28">[28]</a> As information of this technology began to gain popularity many hospitals quickly saw the benefit in this machinery and decided to invest in an X-ray machine. Hospitals near Williamson County requested help from central Texas’s most experienced individual in X-ray technology, Robert Hyer.<a href="#_ftn29">[29]</a> Robert Hyer helping nearby hospitals with their new technology would have been a great way to improve the quality of a hospital's application of this device. Another big part of expanding this technology was entertainment. Not long after the invention of the X-ray was discovered it began to see use as a source of entertainment as well as for medical reasons. After this technology became more readily available people began to get X-ray pictures taken with it for fun.<a href="#_ftn30">[30]</a> Without the present day knowledge of radiation many people exposed themselves to this radiation often without protective measures. Since Robert Hyer was one of the first in Texas to have this technology he oftentimes allowed visitors inside his laboratory to experience X-rays first hand.<a href="#_ftn31">[31]</a> This would have made one of the first examples of X-ray entertainment in Texas to occur right in Southwestern University. In today’s world the X-ray has been greatly refined, and experienced radiologists are capable of saving lives with very little risk of mishap. With the commonality of injuries amongst an aging population the X-ray is a very important addition to modern medicine. This device continues to make a positive impact. Without it kids could have long term injuries from broken bones, cancers could go undiagnosed, and objects inside the body could be almost impossible to find. These examples alone cover such a variety of common injuries that without this technology many of us could be negatively impacted. Robert Hyer’s use of the X-ray was helpful in removing a needle from a kid's foot and a bullet from a person's back.<a href="#_ftn32">[32]</a> Special collections, to this day, has a picture of a dislocated hip taken by Robert Hyer at Southwestern University. These early examples of Robert Hyer’s X-ray usage show how even in the beginning stages this machine helped Williamson County residents recover from injuries. The beginning of the X-ray was very experimental and had many shortcomings, but these shortcomings were soon remedied and this device grew into a piece of very important medical equipment. Many of the people involved in this experimentation could be considered scientists or entrepreneurs out to demonstrate the abilities of the X-ray. Without these scientists using this technology and gaining real world experience the X-ray may not have grown into what it is today. Near the time of the invention's debut the technology would have greatly depended on the actions of scientists to help spread the experience of the X-ray. This is why Robert Hyer’s X-ray experimentation and lectures had such a positive impact on Texas’s medical application of the X-ray. The early 20th century was a time for many great discoveries and one of the most beneficial medical discoveries saw a great deal of its popularisation through Texas from Robert Hyer. Robert Hyer’s contribution to the state of Texas has been widely recognized and has even earned him an article on The Texas State Handbook as well as a place in Southwestern University’s record books. Robert Hyer was a master of physics and a very ambitious regent of Southwestern. His work has certainly impacted many students for generations and his work with the X-ray undoubtedly has saved many lives throughout Texas. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Neil Thomas Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Bynum, William F. A Little History Of Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Ibid <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Sean F Johnston, History Of Science New York: Oneworld Publications, 2012. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Bynum, William F. A Little History Of Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Ibid <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Ibid <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Handbook of Texas Online, Robert Lewis Soulen, "HYER, ROBERT STEWART," accessed February <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Ibid <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> Ibid <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Ibid <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Jones, Ralph Wood. Southwestern University, 1840-1961. Austin, Tex.: Jenkins Pub. Co., 1973. <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Ibid <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Handbook of Texas Online, Robert Lewis Soulen, "HYER, ROBERT STEWART," accessed February <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Jones, Ralph Wood. Southwestern University, 1840-1961. Austin, Tex.: Jenkins Pub. Co., 1973. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Ibid <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> Ibid <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Handbook of Texas Online, Robert Lewis Soulen, "HYER, ROBERT STEWART," accessed February 24, 2020, <a href="http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fhy02">http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fhy02.</a> Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Modified on February 15, 2019. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Ray Hyer Brown, Robert Stuart Hyer; The Man I Knew Literary Licensing, LLC (April 21, 2012), 2012. <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Ibid <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Ibid <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Jones, Ralph Wood. Southwestern University, 1840-1961. Austin, Tex.: Jenkins Pub. Co., 1973. <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Ray Hyer Brown, Robert Stuart Hyer; The Man I Knew Literary Licensing, LLC (April 21, 2012), 2012. <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Ibid <a href="#_ftnref24">[24]</a> Ibid <a href="#_ftnref25">[25]</a> Ibid <a href="#_ftnref26">[26]</a> Ibid <a href="#_ftnref27">[27]</a> Ibid <a href="#_ftnref28">[28]</a> Ibid <a href="#_ftnref29">[29]</a> Ibid <a href="#_ftnref30">[30]</a> Pamboukian, Sylvia. ""Looking Radiant": Science, Photography and the X-ray Craze of 1896." Victorian Review <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/27793468">27, no. 2 (2001): 56-74. Accessed April 26, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/27793468.</a> <a href="#_ftnref31">[31]</a> Ray Hyer Brown, Robert Stuart Hyer; The Man I Knew Literary Licensing, LLC (April 21, 2012), 2012. <a href="#_ftnref32">[32]</a> Ibid. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource [X-Ray Image] Description An account of the resource Early X-Ray taken by Dr. Robert Stewart Hyer of a dislocated hip. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dr. Robert Stewart Hyer Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived J.N.R. Score Box One, Folder 6 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1899 Type The nature or genre of the resource Image; Still Image Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context SU_Faculty_JNRScore_Box1_Folder6_HyerXray_image_400.jpg https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/ca497dd4e9527de5fa041674f555765c.jpg 5ac18ab34240a8d4f6b6be6e0a700a4c Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A History of the Spanish Flu at SU Description An account of the resource The Spanish influenza spread throughout the United States from 1918-1920. It was able to claim more than 675,00 American lives. While technology today allows for the fast and almost instantaneous spread of knowledge, means of communication in the early twentieth century were much less expeditious. The radio and newspaper were the two main forms of media that were available to the public. These two medias were responsible for communication knowledge from the scientists to the public. Through them, the public was able to stay continuously informed on the happenings of the country. Important information, such as updates on the rapidly spreading pandemic, were able to make people in many places aware of the threat at hand. This essay aims to understand how and why, during one of the deadliest pandemics, life at Southwestern University seemed to continue as normal. In the United States, as World War 1 was ending, it was the beginning of a new period of time in the country. The Spanish influenza was quickly spreading worldwide and by the end the pandemic, claimed more than 675,000 deaths in the United States alone. The spanish flu has been recognized to have taken place in three waves, with the first starting around spring or summer of 1918. It took a heavy toll on the young adult population as it killed roughly one in four of its victims. This was a considerably higher mortality rate, as compared to other epidemics which killed about one in every thousand.1 The Spanish flu spread with great speed across the country, largely in cities with military bases. While it is hard to pinpoint where the pandemic began, it can be said to have originated in Kansas in January of 1918. It became impossible to stop the spread once it began, as interconnected transportation networks allowed the virus to find itself all over the world. To understand how this epidemic spread with such strength and speed, it is important to look at those who spread it: the general public. How much did the public know about the Spanish Flu? How much did the public know about germs and viruses in general? It is necessary to look to the history of germ theory in order to find out the information the public had at the time. Before germ theory, nobody thought that a living organism from the outside could cause a disease. Doctors had been explaining illnesses by linking them to internal changes in the humours. Overindulgence in food and drink, or bad habits have also been seen as causes of illnesses before the concept of falling ill from other organisms.2 The introduction of germ theory was a big turning point in medicine as it brought with it the concept of warfare within the body. The realization that the body has to defend against small living creatures, was one spurred interest in how these microorganisms play a role in everyday things. While looking into the role of microorganisms in events such as baking bread or brewing beer, Louis Pasteur made many discoveries in dairy products that are still used today. Showing that bacteria and other microorganisms caused diseases in not only humans, but also in animals was important as it helped show that these organisms caused disease. Diseases were explained by doctors as contagious. This meant that the disease could be spread by contact between people. Cholera, the most feared disease of the 1800s, was a disease that doctors had trouble explaining. A major fear shared by many people, was that Cholera was spreading through the air. In order to figure out how it was spreading, English physician, John Snow, mapped out London neighborhoods. By doing this, he became sure that Cholera was being spread by water. He concluded that the feces and vomit of Cholera victims was contaminating the water, which was then pumped into the city from a public pump in Soho, central London.3 What Snow’s research did was raise awareness for the need for clean water for public health. By raising awareness, the public began to understand how they were spreading the disease. They were informed by the discoveries made by scientists like Snow, and were able to learn the importance of having clean water to avoid the rampant spread of disease. The creation of the vaccine is another example of communication between scientists and the public improving. Louis Pasteure aimed to make the Anthrax bacterium weaker, to be able to inject it into patients as a vaccine. Anthrax was a disease that was sometimes spread from farm animals to humans, and caused sores of the skin. If it is spread to the bloodstream, anthrax can kill. As Pasteure found out where the bacterium thrived and where it was vulnerable, he was able to create an anthrax bacteria that was much weaker and less able to cause disease. This made Anthrax the first human disease preventable by vaccine.4 Once Pasteur made his discovery, he invited newspaper reporters to his house soon after his creation. In front of live reporters, Pasteur was able to show how the non vaccinated animals died, while the vaccinated animals were unaffected. This helped make the public aware of the powerful steps medical science was making.5 The process of disseminating knowledge created by scientists to the public has been proven throughout the history of disease and germs to be an important process. As scientists discovered microorganisms in the air and all around us, they better understood how to prevent the spread of disease. Cholera placed a big emphasis on sanitation, while innovations like Louis Pasteure’s vaccine for Anthrax let the public know of science’s leaps forward. Though the communication between scientists and the public in instances like these were strong, other attempts of communication are not so successful. There was a fear of the flu nearly everywhere in the United States, but in some areas, the flu did not cause panic or fear. With daily reports of the influenza spreading in other countries or even the rampant spread in the US, some areas did not see the Spanish flu as an imminent threat. The reason for this seemingly irrational behavior in these places was cognitive inertia.6 This is the tendency of existing beliefs or habits of thought to blind people to change realities. Cognitive inertia was fueled by the understanding of the flu as only a seasonal visitor rather than a viral threat. It was also believed to only seldom kill the strong and healthy, which was horribly untrue. As the public began to rely more on sources such as newspapers to stay informed, news of the troops overseas and updates on the war overshadowed the pandemic in some areas. Although these areas affected by cognitive inertia were informed on what was happening in other parts of the world, they chose to ignore what scientists were saying, and instead stuck with their own beliefs. The communication between the scientist and public was further weakened by the newspapers, who focused their attention on the war overseas, rather than the viral war they were facing at home. According to the deficit model of science communication, information moves from experts to the public. This is called popularization. This creation and diffusion of information for the general public to create new knowledge is what bridges the gap between the experts and the public.7 In order for the popularization of science to occur, this relies on mediums of information exchange such as books and museums, in order for the people to become educated. While these fountains of information were readily available to observe, the newspaper and radio were essential to relay messages in a fast manner. The relationship between the experts and the public becomes increasingly important in times of uncertainty and fear, such as a pandemic. Expert sources such as the Surgeon General can be seen giving advice in The Williamson County Sun, in articles titled “How to fight Spanish Influenza”. Here, they make the public aware of different ways to stop the spread of the virus such as washing one's hands or avoiding crowds.8 While this is a step in the right direction, there seems to be a lack of a sense of urgency in making the public aware of the gravity of the situation. This was made apparent after looking through The Williamson County Sun and its issues from 1918 to 1920. While the pandemic was sweeping the nation, students and faculty alike at Southwestern seem to have been under informed. The Surgeon General allowed readers to understand how to combat the virus more effectively, but the lack of more articles like these seems strange due to the severity of the pandemic. The lack of information in the SU community about the Spanish Influenza was not due to the experts, as the communication of knowledge is dependent on the newspaper and journalists, which report to the public. Experts and the media are heavily reliant on each other to disseminate knowledge to the public. While the experts lead the communication process by producing knowledge, they rely on the media to spread it. Without experts, the media would not be able to spread any information that the public may need. The public has its own role in this process, as they agree to scientific judgements, and pledge their support for activities that scientists have deemed desirable or essential.9 In terms of participation, the public can only react and interpret the knowledge they receive. The public can express how they feel, as journalists record and translate that expression into a newspaper article. An example of this is in The Megaphone, where an article titled “Lawrence Called Home By Death Of His Father”, describes a student whose father had died of complications resulting from the Spanish influenza.10 While there was communication between the public and experts, it was not sufficient on Southwestern’s campus, as there was not enough public awareness of the virus. This may have caused the public to be unprepared for the virus that came to take a heavy toll on the SU community. As medical advancements in the world improved the quality of life, there were some things that even medical advancements cannot control. The spread of the Spanish influenza through the United states from 1918-1920 was one that ravaged the American people. Despite this, the SU community seemed nearly unfazed, and displayed no signs of panic. One cause to blame for this reaction may have been cognitive inertia. Cognitive inertia may have been one of the causes, but this stems from an uninformed public. In order to keep the general public informed, experts must communicate through the media, which provides outlets for audiences to observe. While the Spanish Influenza’s effect was felt at SU, the community may have prepared better, if media outlets such as The Megaphone and The Williamson County Sun had made the public more aware about the pandemic at hand. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nicolas Guarin Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived 1 Tom Dicke, “Waiting for the flu: Cognitive Inertia and the Spanish Influenza Pandemic of 1918-19,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 70, no. 2 (April 2015):201, accessed February 15, 2020, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/579501. 2William Bynum, A Little History of Science (Yale University Press, 2012), 161. 3 Bynum, A Little History, 163. 4 Bynum, A Little History, 164. 5 Bynum, A Little History, 165. 6 Dicke, “Waiting for the flu: Cognitive Inertia and the Spanish Influenza Pandemic of 1918-19,” 197. 7 Bruce V. Lewenstein, Popularization, 667 8 “How To Fight Spanish Influenza,” Williamson County Sun, October 18, 1918 9 Steven Shapin, “Science and the Public,” in Companion to the History of Modern Science, ed. R.C. Olby, G.N. Cantor, J.R.R. Christie, M.J.S. Hodge (London: Princeton University Press ,1974), 992 10 Waldrop, Gayle, “Lawrence Called Home By Death Of His Father,” The Megaphone, November 5, 1918, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth394998/m1/3/ Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lawrence Called Home by Death of His Father Subject The topic of the resource A student is called home due to his fathers death. Description An account of the resource The students father dies from complications stemming from Spanish Influenza. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Gayle Waldrop Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Megaphone (Georgetown, Tex.), Vol. 12, No. 6, Ed. 1 Tuesday, November 5, 1918, p. 3 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Megaphone Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 5, 1918 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Newspaper Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource News https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/3e696e287412bb285aa3efd2ed056d93.jpg bbdbd697fac5aa57ad492289767d1434 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Southwestern Summer School Announcement Description An account of the resource In 1913 the first psychology course was offered as a summer class Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Hill Jr., Joe L. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Texas History Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource April 11, 1913 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Newspaper Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Article https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/540bd7882f5cccdce8bc2dddd7fcd568.png 19510b062f20356794c1e1ece9c6c0cd Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Subject The topic of the resource AIDS at Southwestern Description An account of the resource While many universities have a responsibility to educate their students in practicing medicine, they all have the responsibility to provide medicine. The set of services present in a student health center on college campuses has evolved enormously, primarily due to new discoveries in the field of medicine as well as changes in the social dynamics of the United States. Putting Southwestern University in the context of the historical development of medicine and social justice establishes the university as an institution willing to acquiesce to change and generally providing the best possible resources for its students. Southwestern is also communicative and responsive to medical developments that best benefit its health services. A very current issue related to the development of medicine is the outbreak of the coronavirus (COVID-19) and the changes being made everywhere to try to control the pandemic. Southwestern University officially moved the Spring 2020 semester to distance learning on March 19th, with school services (including the health center) being provided remotely. Southwestern’s response to this presently evolving case opens up questions to historically similar situations. The best way to historically observe Southwestern’s measures for adjusting to social change and developing needs of students is through the university’s handling of the HIV/AIDS crisis during the 1980s and 1990s. Over time, there has been a significant improvement in treatment in the sphere of sexual health on college campuses in the United States. Beginning under the euphemism of “social hygiene,” prevention and treatment of sexual health issues on college campuses began during the World War II era. Due to the increasing number of women attending college as well as evolving degrees of sex positivity and freedom, treatments for sexual health became less taboo and conversations became more open. Since college campus demographics are mostly made up of young people, this movement could be seen in American universities. Unfortunately, one side of this conversation is significantly less positive than others. The outbreak of HIV/AIDS raised questions about health that were never explored before, notably regarding the nature of the epidemic and how separate groups could be disproportionally affected by disease. AIDS, formally known as acquired immune deficiency syndrome, emerged as a “leading cause of death among young adults in the United States” in the 1980s. Somewhat surprisingly, college students attending school at the height of the HIV scare were a relatively low-risk group, to use the terminology of the time, for contracting the virus. This was due in part to the proportion of heterosexual students to non-heterosexual students, since the primary reason that heterosexual adults would be at risk was associated with conditions of poverty. Therefore, most students of universities were “not in sexual networks that will include a significant proportion of heterosexual partners who have HIV.” This is not to say that a low risk level meant no action was taken. In a conference held at Southwestern regarding the outbreak, assistant professor of sociology Edward L. Kain emphasized the impact that diseases could have on a population, and warned against developing an “us vs. them” mentality. Kain made it clear that just because you “don’t fall into a high risk group, it doesn’t mean you’re not going to get it.” The low-risk environment of college campuses could be partially attributed to the response universities had to the outbreak in terms of education and prevention. Once information about the issue became more accessible and de-stigmatized, many institutions developed non-discriminatory policies towards students with HIV, experimented with peer education programs, and implemented risk assessment in health centers. It also became essential to prevent the spread of misinformation and harmful rumors. Edward Kain discussed this problem through research he conducted with his sociology students at the time of the outbreak. He concluded that rumors are born from panic, created to fill in gaps where knowledge is lacking. Kain found this to be important because the public’s attitude towards AIDS would “determine how effectively the disease is treated medically and educationally.” It was of great consequence that the knowledge cultivated by a community (in this case, Southwestern University) was accurate and easily transmitted to the public. Since the sole purpose of a university’s health center is to make medical knowledge and practice readily available to its students, the AIDS epidemic is an appropriate lens through which to assess Southwestern’s care of its students. At the height of the epidemic (and once it had become clear that this was a health threat that went beyond sexual orientation), it became vital for universities to “sponsor programs that inform students about the disease and advocate for measures to prevent transmission of the virus.” While there are no records indicating the presence of HIV antibody testing on campus at Southwestern, a 1987 issue of the Megaphone contains an article written by health center employee Jan Pickett about the issue of testing. The article gives general information regarding the importance of at-risk individuals being tested, what a test entails, and various locations and phone numbers of testing institutions. Pickett notes the importance of practicing safe sex and adopting any changes necessary to protect from the virus, making it clear that receiving a negative test result is not protection in and of itself. Additionally, there is an issue of the Megaphone published the year prior containing an article titled “Let’s talk about AIDS.” The article not only gives basic information on the AIDS crisis, but it also announces a panel discussion to take place on campus in which professionals with broad knowledge and perspective on the issue would inform students and answer questions. The panel was to include a nurse specialist, the director of the Austin AIDS Project, the Deputy Director of the Williamson County Health Department, and an AIDS patient. This event especially showcases Southwestern’s willingness to adapt and provide necessary aid to its students. In tandem with societal attitudes of the time, mentions of the gay liberation movement or the AIDS epidemic in the 1970s and 1980s in Southwestern publications were made with a tendency towards anonymity. The aforementioned article by Jan Pickett emphasizes locations for anonymous testing and promises to protect the secrecy of students visiting her office for HIV/AIDS-related questions. The first article found in the Megaphone that directly discusses the gay rights movement is from 1973, titled “Suppressed Minority: A Concerned Student Speaks Out.” The anonymous student writes to the readers, pleading for equality and understanding on campus and implying that they had faced discrimination while attending Southwestern. Therefore, it would appear it was not until the mid-to-late 1980s and the breakout of AIDS that homosexuality became a topic of sincere conversation on Southwestern campus and something under the eye of health services. The health center, in this case, acts as a middleman in the transmission of medical knowledge, though in some cases more quickly and effectively than in others. While it can be assumed that those employed within the health center are aptly qualified for their position, the changing nature of medicine requires communication of knowledge both within the field and beyond it. The evolving breadth of services provided and medical standards of the student body at Southwestern implies that this communication has been constantly occurring throughout the school’s history, as shown through samples of blank student health records from 2004 and 2018 (actual student records are not attainable due to confidentiality), requiring more and more immunizations and stamps of approval from physicians prior to attending the university. Since Southwestern does not have its own practice of medical research, discoveries, treatments, and anything else that could benefit the student body is presumably acquired from outside, credible sources. The university has done its part to remain up to date on medical developments and has adjusted its policies accordingly The history of medicine, and more specifically of medicine on college campuses, reveals a great deal about the nature of social dynamics both within a student body and within the institution itself. The liberal arts environment of Southwestern has lent to its increasingly open attitude towards change in social justice, and the relationship between these changes and medical issues can be observed through the history of health services. There have been areas in which the university’s health center has found itself behind the times, such as in the case of the delay in providing women’s health services. But otherwise, there has been a general urgency to keep up with the evolving medical needs of students. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Elaine Goulden Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource May 8, 2020 Language A language of the resource English Title A name given to the resource Community in Crisis: Southwestern and the AIDS Epidemic Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Barrera, Martha. “Let’s talk about AIDS,” The Megaphone, January 30, 1986, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634603/. Cohen, Elliot D., and Michael Davis, eds. AIDS: Crisis in Professional Ethics. Temple University Press, 1994. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14bt3gc. Franki, Marie. “Health Services adds new doctors,” The Megaphone, September 21, 2006, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634759/. “Health Record,” Form. Georgetown, TX: Southwestern University, Special Collections, May 2004. Pickett, Jan. “Living Well at Southwestern,” The Megaphone, October 30, 1987, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634509/. Rollins, Laura. “AIDS: from SU to the World,” Williamson County Sun, November 14, 1987, 12. “Southwestern seminar eyes AIDS and society,” Williamson County Sun, November 1, 1987. “Student Health Record,” Form. Georgetown, TX: Southwestern University, Special Collections, 2018. “Suppressed Minority: A Concerned Student Speaks Out,” The Megaphone, May 4, 1973, https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634200/. Turner, H. Spencer, and Janet L. Hurley, eds. The History and Practice of College Health. University Press of Kentucky, 2002. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt130j9xw. Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634509/ Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Living Well at Southwestern Subject The topic of the resource HIV Testing in the greater Austin area Description An account of the resource An article written by the SU health director on what HIV testing entails and how to access it. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Jan Pickett Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Megaphone Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Portal to Texas History Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource October 30, 1987 Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Newsletter