After reading Dai’s opinion, I can surmise that there is no position more incredulous and absurd than the one presented. I cannot think of a more despicable prompt and unqualified acknowledgement of the events that have transpired at Lafayette recently. The original passage leaves its audience to recall one reverberating word uttered erroneously in the first paragraph: inadequate.

The proposal at hand is not inadequate. Rather, it would be inadequate to say the rejected mission and values statement would create a “one-dimensional” experience at the college. On the contrary, the statement looks to promote a multi-faceted, multi-dimensional experience on campus. It seeks to acknowledge that Lafayette is not only a premiere academic institution, but more.

It was also inadequate by the author to limit their view of Lafayette and liberal arts colleges at large. A liberal arts classification should not be a determining factor of a values statement, nor should it be viewed as a general debilitation. Other top educational institutions don’t incapacitate or restrict themselves like the author and professors quoted attempt to. As an example, Princeton University is a liberal arts college, and yet one where athletics are viewed as a co-curricular activity, per their website. This type of co-curricular verbiage is one of the major gripes Lafayette faculty has had about the proposed mission and values statement. Is Princeton’s primary mission not to educate because of this fact? Does their institution “prioritize superficial aesthetics and a façade of success”? No, I do not believe anyone who thinks critically would answer yes to these questions. Princeton has habitually been named US News’ number one undergraduate university while claiming athletics co-curricular. Of course, the faculty and author that held these criticisms about Lafayette would not categorize Princeton the way they have their own institution. Yet, it is their collective personal feelings of inadequacy that created their argumentative position. The essence of Lafayette College is not found in academics’ arrogance and egos. There have been enough college campuses in the last calendar year that have succumb to the foolishness of overzealous educators, and here we may have another example.

Whether the lecturers at the college want to acknowledge it or not, the college experience is changing. It Is evolving like it always has from one generation to the next. President Hurd has surely considered and postulated what this would mean for her college, and she seems to be the leader meant to meet this moment. Her vision is not limited to the mission and values statement referendum. She has looked to create and celebrate an environment built on addition. The addition of engineering to a traditional classics education. The addition of community support to College Hill activities. The addition of academic certificates and programs that better ready young minds for the reality of today, not the reality of yesteryear. And still, there are detractors that seek not to promote a better vision for Lafayette, but only to propagate their own self-image for personal gain. I would implore the letter’s author and professors quoted to end their public slander campaign over fickle drama and unimportant issues, and realize that they have been gifted quality leadership that has reenergized the image and future possibilities of the college.

I have no other sentiments to give than that which have already been presented. I will leave you with an external point of reference. Marquis de Lafayette, for who this college is named, championed his progressivism and called us all to reimagine our individual potentials when asking “Why not?”. He did not yearn to only be great in one endeavor, he strived to be great at many. So why should our college not call all its members to do the same? The criticisms of President Hurd show how far astray we have been taken from this guide. The author of the original piece allowed their limited mindset to be cultivated by professors with individual righteousness complexes. No wonder students love to cling to their “social media presence” and “façade of success” when they have seen their college professors cling to their own hyperinflated facades continually.

As an alum and a parent of a current student I felt the need to respond. It is my understanding this is not President Nicole Hurd’s mission and values statement. I believe there were faculty and staff who were all part of the process to create this statement. From what I read in another article in The Lafayette, the missions and value statement was not dismissed by the faculty. However, they would like to see some changes. I have seen great alignment within the college since the start of my child’s college experience. I have seen that the students are at the center of the work being done on campus, and everyone on campus has a role and a duty to educate. We are really unique as an institution, since we are a top tier liberal arts college that has an incredible engineering program and Division 1 athletics. While my child is not an engineer nor an athlete, my child has had amazing professors and is loving the Lafayette experience within the liberal arts education. I do see that some students are more focused on career success when they enter college, and therefore, they do not desire to study across disciplines. I think this is just a change in the times and might not reflect our college but more aptly reflects parental guidance and pressure to have a career upon graduation. As for the comment “the college’s primary mission is to educate people,” do our students not also learn outside the lecture hall in the community, in athletics, and in the performing arts? To dismiss this and think that the classroom is the only place to learn would be unfair, close-minded, and frankly regressive.

As someone who has talked to other Lafayette parents and alumni, I can tell you that we are all excited to have President Hurd leading our college. She is a breath of fresh air who seems to have a vision to raise Lafayette up and be inclusive in the process.