different views

The article suggests that the professor was attempting to speak the rational truth; he was not trying to “stir up trouble” yet instead he was trying to tell his concepts with his true feelings of the situation.  The college president wanted to cut the amount of money given to the English department, the department Phædrus was a member of because the department had been talking about the issues of academic freedom. Phædrus believed the students were a bit confused on what he was trying to do and thought that the students did not understand his efforts to stop accreditation. Phædrus tried to explain accreditation through a lecture, the Church of Reason. Through this lecture he explained that a building which was once a church has been made into a bar; this brought up many questions and complaints. Although, Phædrus is trying to make his students understand what made the church a church. The church was not considered a church because the building but because the minister, priest, people that attended, etc. the building had nothing to do with it. The bricks, shape of the roof, glass, of the building did not make the church, “the church” it actually had nothing to do with the building. From this, taking away the accreditation of the university would just declare that this place was no longer “holy ground,” all that would be left was the building and books. A real church can exist through the conditions that make it into a church, not the building or setting or location of the church. Phædrus was trying to help prevent these violations of accreditation requirements because he did not believe there needs to be formal requirements of academic excellence. Instead the college will make the students reach academic excellence through teachings and ideas not through requirements and laws. Just because one professor has a different thought or belief than another professor doesn’t make him or her wrong, it just shows a different point of view.