Announcement Regarding TNPU's Independence

[Marcus Antonius]

---

THE NORTH PACIFIC UNIVERSITY​

"sequere Polaris"​

---

It is with mixed feelings that I must announce that The North Pacific University (TNPU), has become independent of Government control and promotion. Please read this announcement by the Ministry of Culture Announcement. There are some who believe that this is a good thing and there are those who believe that it will bring about the end of TNPU. I, as Chancellor and my loyal Staff will endeavor to see that TNPU will not fail.

With this separation in mind our TNPU Council has expanded to produce a Charter for the University. There will be more news on the Charter as and when it has been agreed by the TNPU Council.

Per ardua ad astra

MARCVS ANTONIVS
Chancellor of The North Pacific University

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Given that you have alluded to it in your post, I want to state for the record that whilst I wish you the very best in your plan for the University, and I believe you have shown great ability, I do not support the decision to privatise the university.

It was done with little consultation and was a direct response to a feeling of being under siege by the criticism of one individual about broadcast rights in relation to religious broadcasts. I note that said individual has been rewarded with a Council position despite their behaviour. It is for all of those reasons that I declined to serve on the university council when offered.

As the Delegate who restored the University, I did so after a careful review of the prior institution. The previous university was laid to ruin by a ridiculous bureaucracy that included a charter, a large council and complex staffing arrangements. It is worth nothing that the new council for this University is larger than the cabinet itself. I hope that at the very least, the new charter takes into consideration the need for the institution to grow organically and without a sea of red tape.

 

[Ecclesia Poenitens]

I'm glad that after repeatedly telling the individual in question that they would have the right to continue to use religious broadcasts in this university, that the region is taking steps to follow through with what the members of its own government said -- it is preserving the right to use religious broadcasts. The decision to privatize the University is the only logical one, given (a) that religious content should be allowed in the University and that (b) The North Pacific is a secular region. This decision protects the region's secular governance.

I do not support the decision to privatise the university.

I must ask then -- what alternative route do you support? Do you support denying the right to religious conversation within the university, even as a significant majority of the region seems to support allowing such conversation? If you do wish to deny this right, where would religious matters be discussed?

Alternatively, do you believe the North Pacific should cease to be a secular institution? It would seem not, particularly given that shutting religious dialogue out of public broadcasts was an attempt to protect secular governance in the first place.

It was done with little consultation and was a direct response to a feeling of being under siege by the criticism of one individual about broadcast rights in relation to religious broadcasts. I note that said individual has been rewarded with a Council position despite their behaviour. It is for all of those reasons that I declined to serve on the university council when offered.

The Augustine Institute is an active institution within the University (with plans to arguably be the most active) and its leader is a citizen in good standing. This citizen's "behaviour" was not illegal, nor did it violate any rules. It was a genuine attempt to secure the right to broadcast a program that they had been told they would be able to broadcast. I think attempts to shut this individual out of the governance of the University derive from mere pettiness rather than substantive objection.

For what it's worth, I don't mean to be harsh, nor do I wish to accuse you of any wrongdoing. I just don't want the region to keep on holding grudges against its members.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I must ask then -- what alternative route do you support? Do you support denying the right to religious conversation within the university, even as a significant majority of the region seems to support allowing such conversation? If you do wish to deny this right, where would religious matters be discussed?

Alternatively, do you believe the North Pacific should cease to be a secular institution? It would seem so, particularly given that shutting religious dialogue out of public broadcasts was an attempt to protect secular governance.

At no point have I suggested denying the right to religious conversation within the university. I have no issue with that.

TNPU should be a secular institution, there is no question of that. It being secular does not mean it is prohibitive to any religious conversation or debate.

The reasoning behind the removal of non-NS content from the NBS is far broader than simply protecting secular governance. I don't think it's necessary to rehash that entire discussion.

The Augustine Institute is an active institution within the University (with plans to arguably be the most active) and its leader is a citizen in good standing. This citizen's "behaviour" was not illegal, nor did it violate any rules. It was a genuine attempt to secure the right to broadcast a program that they had been told they would be able to broadcast. I think attempts to shut this individual out of the governance of the University derive from mere pettiness rather than substantive objection.

I refer you to my earlier remarks.

There is no suggestion that the behaviour was illegal or that it violated any rules.

That does not mean that the issue was approached in a manner that is correct and proper. It does not mean that it was appropriate behaviour or that it was conducive to finding a reasonable solution that was satisfactory to all. I believe it was the opposite of all of those things. It was aggressive, it involved name calling, conspiracy theories ("privileged few"), and other childish behaviour.

I believe that the elevation to the University's council after such an outburst is quite a difficult decision to justify on its merits. There is nothing petty about these considerations - they are an entirely pragmatic position to take. It is worth noting however that the appointment has already been made.

I hope, nevertheless, that this particular remark regarding the appointment does not bury the other more significant issues I identified. These are issues that I think all involved can find common ground on. Specifically, that the process that led to this decision and transition could have and should have been more thoroughly planned and thought out.

Secondly, that it is vitally important that we learn the lessons of prior experience and failure, and that the university is free from the tyranny of an overly bureaucratic charter, council and staffing arrangements.

And thirdly, that as an institution organic growth and academic freedom must be encouraged and fostered.

 

[Ecclesia Poenitens]

I appreciate the above responses, and I hope you don't mind if I engage with them -- I genuinely care about what's happening here, even if TNP isn't my technical home. I still spend plenty of time over with y'alls, so I hope my opinion is worth something.

At no point have I suggested denying the right to religious conversation within the university. I have no issue with that.

TNPU should be a secular institution, there is no question of that. It being secular does not mean it is prohibitive to any religious conversation or debate.

The reasoning behind the removal of non-NS content from the NBS is far broader than simply protecting secular governance. I don't think it's necessary to rehash that entire discussion.

My question bears repeating -- what alternative do you propose? The status quo anterior, it sounds like?

And thirdly, that as an institution organic growth and academic freedom must be encouraged and fostered.

What about privatisation hampers this?

That does not mean that the issue was approached in a manner that is correct and proper. It does not mean that it was appropriate behaviour or that it was conducive to finding a reasonable solution that was satisfactory to all. I believe it was the opposite of all of those things. It was aggressive, it involved name calling, conspiracy theories ("privileged few"), and other childish behaviour.

I believe that the elevation to the University's council after such an outburst is quite a difficult decision to justify on its merits. There is nothing petty about these considerations - they are an entirely pragmatic position to take. It is worth noting however that the appointment has already been made.

Though I will respect your wish not to drum up this point, it's worth pointing out that Wonderess seems to display the most enthusiasm for the University of arguably anyone. I reiterate my earlier points -- there is no doubt that he is qualified to hold the position.

As for the second point, was his response good? Certainly not. But it bears repeating that it was egged on by people deliberately playing up something that clearly frustrates him. It started with treating a long article he wrote out as a joke or some mere trifle ("lets destroy secularism owo" and "very cool post wondo, thanks for sharing") and escalating to outright hatred (darcania's post) -- citizens, no, government officials, literally telling Wonderess to his face that they hate him (of course, this isn't the only thing -- a person on the forum had a burning convent as their pfp, for starters). I think y'all should have known that Wonderess can get defensive when discussing religion, and shouldn't have fanned the flames of that. And many people in TNP, yourself included, fanned those flames so hard. You should have seen what was coming. Heck, in the wake of all the vitriol directed at Wonderess for running a program he was allowed to run, I might have reacted the same way he did.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, and I probably shouldn't be involving myself in TNP internal politics, but you really need to play nicer with these topics. Religion is a touchy topic, and people's religious views (and their personhood at-large!) should always be treated with respect. I don't think that happened here: I think a couple people wanted to goad Wonderess into a reaction, or were at the very least wildly insensitive.

That's all. I don't want to drag us off-topic here into personal issues.

 

[Janus]

As for the second point, was his response good? Certainly not. But it bears repeating that it was egged on by people deliberately playing up something that clearly frustrates him. It started with treating a long article he wrote out as a joke or some mere trifle ("lets destroy secularism owo" and "very cool post wondo, thanks for sharing") and escalating to outright hatred (darcania's post) -- citizens, no, government officials, literally telling Wonderess to his face that they hate him (of course, this isn't the only thing -- a person on the forum had a burning convent as their pfp, for starters). I think y'all should have known that Wonderess can get defensive when discussing religion, and shouldn't have fanned the flames of that. And many people in TNP, yourself included, fanned those flames so hard. You should have seen what was coming. Heck, in the wake of all the vitriol directed at Wonderess for running a program he was allowed to run, I might have reacted the same way he did.

I believe your first statement, but think the rest id crap. There's Freud. I was half afraid that you'd show up, but I'm open to what you believe now though you're not quite here yet. And, yes, I'll live, in a RL sense, regarding doing stuff. [Yes, you've been alone too long. Welcome again, this time to the Mind, for lack of a better word]. <-That was a 'voice' that I heard, referring to the statement prior to the brackets and the statement in the [] was simply a welcome to COE. ['m sorry my friend. I'll live as soon as possible, as will you when you awaken, twists gone and new gained. Learn as someone said: that's what this reality is about, methinks. A place to meet and a place to learn.

Talking to my text 'typos' as I write this post and, no, no 'voices' currently, just the associations that this makes in my mind, {f=? Working on transdimensional mathematics...that would be a comment by me, Janus, grin. In any case, I need bunches of math to learn first, among other things. Many.)

In any case, you spew fake news, Ecclesia, regarding "mere trifle." Shite. I'll leave it at that.

And now, friends, I'm tired and going to sleep. Sweet dreams all, even those that shouldn't be messing with the software illegally.

Thank you to most/many/some involved.​

 

[bootsie]

I’m with McMasterdonia. I’m totally fine with TNPU being privatized, but though never specifically stated by either the Chancellor, the Minister of Culture, or the Delegate, the timing heavily implies that this is a knee jerk reaction in order to appeal to one citizen of our region, and did not take into account the opinions of important individuals who may have been able to help this transition easier.

It’s clear that not even the Executive Council discussed this comprehensively before it was announced, as McMasterdonia seems to be so against the idea, though he should’ve had time to make those complaints privately.

As a content creator of TNP, and a former Minister of Education (which used to have purview over the University) I also think it would’ve been nice to have a voice on this rash decision.

Instead, the government of TNP has decided to bend its policies in order to make one citizen’s life easier, but at what cost? There is little framework from which to build a University, and the road ahead for these nine Council members is going to be rough. But don’t worry, we made one citizen happy, so isn’t that worth it?

 

[Marcus Antonius]

I say! This has become "political" ​

As the man surrounded by this conflict, I can see all sides of this conversation.

As far as I was concerned TNPU was doing just fine before the decision to having it forced into independence by the threat of censure and then cast off by the well-meaning Ministry of Culture. This should have been discussed in detail by the Government before such controversial decisions were made.

In RL, Universities are institutions where the freedom to learn and share knowledge is expected and defended. TNPU is no different. In RL, Universities have very large Councils, currently 28 in Oxford, and high levels of bureaucracy. Having suffered that personally, I did not want that for TNPU.

No-one on the Council has been given the position on it as a "Reward", I chose it's projected Membership from individuals who I believed had contributed and could bring talent and decorum to TNPU. I like to think that is how I was honored with the position of Chancellor in the first place.

The Charter - this was something else that has been put upon TNPU, it seems, due to becoming independent. There was no Charter before, only a section on Governance. A lot of work has been put into this and, I am sure, a lot of discussion before it is agreed and published. I share McM's concerns regarding the Charter and I too wish that the new Charter takes into consideration the need for the institution to grow organically and without a sea of red tape.

Finally, If you will indulge the professor, I based TNPU on my beloved Oxford, it is therefore bizarre that TNPU appears to have controversy surrounding it as well. I quote :-
(clears throat)
You in the back! Pay attention!
"From its early days, Oxford was a centre for lively controversy, with scholars involved in religious and political disputes. John Wyclif, a 14th-century Master of Balliol, campaigned for a Bible in the vernacular, against the wishes of the papacy. In 1530, Henry VIII forced the University to accept his divorce from Catherine of Aragon, and during the Reformation in the 16th century, the Anglican churchmen Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley were tried for heresy and burnt at the stake in Oxford. The University was Royalist in the Civil War, and Charles I held a counter-Parliament in Convocation House. In the late 17th century, the Oxford philosopher John Locke, suspected of treason, was forced to flee the country.............................."

 

[Syrixia]

Marcus, you are a god damn class act. What a response that was. Here's to the University under your administration.