Bennion teams
with professors

By MELISSA NIELSEN
UNIVERSITY JOURNAL

Political science professors joined forces in a class presentation Tuesday morning to expand student’s viewpoints on the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
For the first time ever, three different viewpoints of the Constitution were addressed in a classroom panel.
During the week, President Steven D. Bennion, Rodney Decker, dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, and Stephen Roberds, assistant professor of political science, had lecture discussions in Bennion’s and Roberd’s American National Government classes.
This “joint effort interpretation...(is an) opportunity to provide a rich learning experience for students interested in political science,” Decker said.
Bennion said looking at different views and letting the student decide their own is “what education is all about.”
The class presentation also will be given Spring 2003 in Decker’s American National Government class.
American National Government fulfills a general requirement to receive a degree in political science.
Bennion said he was inspired to teach this course after reading the biography John Adams by David McCulloch in his spare time this summer. Bennion enjoys teaching and interacting with the students but with his administrative responsibilities rarely has the time.
Bennion said he is “excited and even passionate” about teaching this course.
Bennion said he hopes to give students an understanding and desire to become involved in government issues, to vote and understand that “with freedom comes responsibility.”
The primary goal of the presentation was to inform students there are different interpretations of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.
Roberds explained that by presenting these different ach

interpretations, he hoped students will realize people can get along even with different political views. He hoped to show students they can “get beyond personalizing politics.”
Even though each professor took the role they are representing, it doesn’t mean they were 100 percent for or against eviewpoint. Although they strongly represented their sides personally, they saw every side’s good and bad points.
Bennion took a more conservative viewpoint, representing the Constitutional Convention as the miracle of Philadelphia.
“A miracle is an event you did not expect to happen, not exactly the parting of the red sea...” Bennion said.
In Bennion’s portion of the lecture, he described America’s Founding Fathers as “brilliant, miraculous men,” who in signing the document and participating, said to have sacrificed “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”
As Bennion addressed the viewpoint of the Founding Fathers having a “higher power guiding their destinies,” Decker took an approach of the Constitution serving as a bundle of compromises.
Decker said he agrees that a miracle did occur and the Founding Fathers did have personal financial concerns, but the primary reason was to compromise.
Decker described these men who participated as “practical, pragmatic individuals.”
He said the Founding Fathers were “neither saints, nor schemers; loafy or philosophical. They were practical individuals” who had many issues to compromise. While addressing delicate issues, Decker said if the Fathers didn’t work together, the Constitution would not exist.
Roberds presented the Beardsian viewpoint, which is the idea that the constitution was conveyed solely because of personal interest of the Founding Fathers.
Just like amending the Constitution, “if you want to win the game...you change the rules,” Roberds said.
Roberds said his admiration for his fellow professors did not influence his strong point of view.
“Who was doing the compromising?” Roberds said. “A small homogenous group of...55 rich, white guys.”
Roberds represented a statesman viewpoint of how minorities and lower class public interests were not represented at first. Roberds said he hopes this will become an annual event established for years to come.