• "What do you guys think about Placher's apology for false advertising on page 14?"—EC

• In Placher's first talk, he explains our flawed views of the "glorious past". Why do you think we allow ourselves to fall into this trap?—LK

• page 15: Do you guys actually think that we can't learn lessons from the things that happened as long ago as 1830?—RA

• Q: Pgs 15&16. If you were in a position of authority, would you ever consider trying to entirely change the face of something like Louis Hopkins did?—ER

• In "A College's use of its past" Placher mentions that we should remember what we owe to our predecessors. So how do we use the sacrifices that our predecessors made to motivate us? How do prevent the loss of that motivation?—JP

• On the bottom of page 17 and the top of 18, Placher touches on how the college doesn't make enough efforts to be diverse. Do we find this true still today?—KM

• On p. 19, the author discusses that many professors choose to leave ethical questions to preachers and philosophers. Do you think this is the way it should be?—RS

• My question comes from page 28. In the forth paragraph, the topic of a curriculum change is mentioned. The new curriculum fell in line with what was modern at the cost of Wabash's history. Do you think that having a modern curriculum is more important than tradition?—CD

• A significant portion of Wabash's students are involved in athletics; what can an athlete hope to gain from learning about the success of past student athletes from Wabash? Why is it impoortant to keep history of the years Wabash defeated Purdue or won Big State in track? pg. 28—PJI

• p 30 - Placher reminds us that Wabash is not some perfect institution, as much as we like it to be. We had our own moments of bigotry and close-mindedness, and still do in some aspects. In what ways do you think Wabash has opened up in today's society, and in what ways do you think we are still closed off?—KW

• (p. 30-31) How did Wabash not look into the accusations against Pound and just let him go.—SM

• In the Eulogy for William C. Placher (p.75), there is one part that says: "Bill viewed himself as a sinner saved by grace... imperfection". It is true that no one is perfect and therefore, we as an individual should strive more to get close to that. If his sin is being aware of human imperfection, why was he saved be grace? What do you think about that?—KT