« *Letter to the Editor* Shoo, fly, from my overpriced sandwich | Main | November 2004 »
October 26, 2004
*Letter to the Editor* The Importance of the Vote
All of us are part of a liberal arts university that values 1) critical thinking, inquiry, and reflection that examines the world in all of its complexity and resists simplistic solutions; 2) a commitment to social and economic justice, which involves compassion for and advocacy on behalf of the most poor and vulnerable among us; 3) an opposition to bigotry in all of its forms (including homophobia); 4) a commitment to responsible stewardship of the environment; 5) a belief in using reason and the best scientific knowledge in understanding ourselves (e.g. accounting for human origins) and dealing with world problems (e.g. global warming, pollution, disease); and 6) seeing ourselves not only as American citizens, but also as citizens of the world.
For all of these reasons, we must do whatever we can to defeat the Bush administration, the policies of which violate all of the values articulated above, and which, consequently, have been disastrous for America and the world. A second term would lead to further harm on both the domestic front (onerous deficits that will be passed on to you, extremists in the judiciary, the erosion of civil liberties) and the international front (alienating other nations, reckless militarism, unilateralism and disregard for international law). There is an unprecedented combination of ignorance and arrogance in this administration. The kind of critical self-reflection that we encourage at Hamline (which includes the ability to acknowledge and examine our mistakes so we can improve in the future) is entirely absent in the Bush administration, which carries out its policies with reckless disregard for the opinions of those Americans who disagree (including eminent scientists, economists, environmentalists, etc.) and the rest of the world.
This administration has tried to make us believe that dissent is unpatriotic, when in fact dissent is the lifeblood of a flourishing democracy.
The Bush administration squandered a rare and precious opportunity to rally almost all nations of the world in a campaign against terrorism, to emphasize the importance of cooperation and international law, and to create a sense of unity amidst all of the world’s divisions. Instead, it did exactly the opposite, almost completely isolating the United States in the world, alienating potential allies, acting unilaterally, and disregarding international law. Imagine what a president with vision could have done at this historic moment. President Bush instead focused on his two obsessions – tax cuts and invading Iraq (one can recognize an obsession because it is relentlessly pursued, with frequently changing justifications, regardless of facts and new conditions). We should be shocked and angered by the poll results showing that most people in the world see the United States as a bigger threat to global peace and order than Al Qaeda. As we remember the outpouring of empathy and support following September 11, we must ask ourselves: How could such a thing happen? The blame lies squarely on the Bush administration.
Whatever one feels about the Bush administration’s vision and policies, it is undeniable that it misled the American public on the reasons for war, and that on the domestic and international fronts, particularly in Iraq, its policies have been carried out with egregious incompetence. On this point, even many leading Republicans agree. With regard to Iraq - If any business had made so many bad decisions, and so utterly failed to prepare for scenarios about which virtually every expert had warned, the management would be sent packing. And yet nobody in this administration has been held accountable. The arrogance of power has led Bush and company to deny what the rest of us can plainly see – the American occupation of Iraq has been nothing short of a disaster. Thomas Friedman, originally a supporter of the war in Iraq, writes that “Iraq is a terrible mess because of the criminal incompetence of the Bush national security team, and we are more alone in the world than ever.”
Too many politicians have lacked the courage to oppose this administration. Powerful, wealthy corporations benefit from its policies, and so continue to support it. Only you, as voters, can hold the Bush administration accountable. That is the power of the vote.
Students from each department can apply the criteria of their own discipline or field to the actions of this administration. Those in the natural sciences, for example, can reflect on the president’s statement that “the jury is still out” on evolution, and his refusal to acknowledge the reality of global warming or to fund stem cell research (on cells that will ultimately be destroyed anyway) to help pursue cures for debilitating and fatal diseases. They can examine the letter of protest written by over 60 leading scientists, including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents, entitled “Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking.”
Students in economics can analyze the administration’s policy of major tax cuts (the majority of which, according to even the non-partisan CBO, go to the wealthiest Americans) in a time of war and enormous deficits, keeping in mind that the original justification for such tax cuts was the large surplus (now gone, thanks to the administration). They can reflect on the fact that the multi-trillion dollar debt that the country is running up will be passed on to them, and that it will only get worse when baby boomers retire. They can read the sobering analysis in Running on Empty by Pete Peterson, former Commerce Secretary under Nixon and CEO of Lehman Brothers, who writes that “the federal government has gone from a 10-year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion when George W. Bush took office to an estimated debt of $6 trillion, if all of Bush's current tax cuts are made permanent…That means deficits averaging $600 billion a year."
They can read the Kerry-endorsement letter written by ten Nobel laureates in Economics that states that
the Bush administration has “embarked on a reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation.”
Students of religion, which is my field, can examine the appropriation of religious language in an administration that lacks the most essential religious virtues (humility, compassion, justice), and articulate how the genuine application of the highest ideals and values of the great world religions will be vitally important in meeting the challenges that face us.
Many Bush-supporters justify their position by claiming that Bush is “a man of faith,” and that this is a “Christian administration.” This is a claim that I would like to explore as a teacher of religion. Since Bush once said that his favorite political philosopher is Jesus Christ, let’s take him at his word and see what policies would be consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the Christian tradition:
1. Siding with the poor and marginalized. It would seem that a commitment to social justice would be essential in a Christian administration. Bush, however, consistently sides with the wealthy and powerful (he even said at a gathering of supporters that “the haves and the have-mores” are his “base”). The Census Bureau recently reported that the ranks of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the number of uninsured increased by 1.4 million. During the Bush years, over 4 million Americans have fallen into poverty, and at the current time 17.6% of children in America live in poverty.
The Congressional Budget Office reported that the majority of Bush’s tax cuts went to the wealthiest 10% of families (more than a third went to the top 1%), and that his policies have shifted more of the nation’s tax burden from the rich to the middle class. In a recent letter, 169 economists and business school professors criticized Bush’s economic policies, concluding that they have “exacerbated the problem of inequality in the United States.”
2. Respect for the dignity of all human beings. This administration is not concerned with social justice or freedom (despite its stated goal of democracy and freedom abroad, it supports autocratic regimes and flagrant human rights abusers when it suits its economic interests); it is concerned primarily, perhaps exclusively, with power. This means both keeping the Republican Party in power at home (even when fundamentally undemocratic means are used, such as disenfranchising voters, tearing up the voter registration cards of Democrats, or engaging in corrupt gerrymandering) and expanding U.S. power abroad. We must not forget that Bush asserted the authority to detain anyone, including Americans, indefinitely without trial. Hundreds of people have been held for years by our government without being formally charged. This is an administration that has tried to justify the use of torture, and it should come as no surprise to discover the abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib prison.
The kind of power this administration represents is the exact opposite of the deepest Christian notion of power, which comes from love and selflessness. It is characterized by hubris, arrogant certitude, and ignoring the interests and opinions of others when it conflicts with its own self-serving agenda.
3. Nonviolence. Even if one does not believe that following the way of Jesus requires pacifism, one must at least follow some form of Just War Doctrine as articulated by the Christian tradition. All versions of this doctrine require that war only be undertaken as an absolutely last resort. At the very least, it requires honesty to the American people so that they can decide if their sons and daughters should die and kill. This administration has failed the test on both counts. By using the “weapons of mass destruction” and 9/
11-link arguments, they misled us into the gravest decision we must make as a nation. One key reason that the architects of the war within the administration were able to do this is that none of them has ever been in combat (avoiding it when they could have served), nor have any of their loved ones been at risk.
It is far easier to make the decision to go to war in a world that looks like a big chessboard than when one must think of the unspeakable horrors a loved one will face.
If we turn to the problem of violence at home, we must wonder how a “Christian administration” would allow an assault weapons ban to lapse (and consistently oppose meaningful gun control measures). Is “What would Jesus shoot?” the new motto?
4. Responsible stewardship for creation. The Bush administration has been gutting environmental laws and exploiting the environment for its natural resources. They are violating the basic moral test for any government -leaving the next generation a country in better shape than the one they got. Future generations will inherit dirtier air and water, land pockmarked with the scars of drilling and mining, and a continued dependence on oil with no strong program to promote alternatives. The National Resource Defense Council writes, “This administration, in catering to industries that put America's health and natural heritage at risk, threatens to do more damage to our environmental protections than any other in U.S. history.” For abundant evidence of this claim, see http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord and http://www.bushgreenwatch.org.
5. Humility. One of the virtues most strongly promoted in Christianity is humility. Christian theology reminds us that because we are limited beings continuously tempted to serve our egos, we must be vigilant against giving into these tendencies. We must especially guard against self-serving, self-aggrandizing action, and the temptations of greed and lust for power. These are the lessons that members of this Administration have not learned. They try to make lack of reflection a virtue (“we are resolute,” they claim), never examining their past actions with an eye to reevaluation.
The Bush team has an enormous war chest and an insatiable lust for power that will lead them to do virtually anything to retain their hold on power. Despite this, the people of this nation still possess the ability to toss them out. Casting a vote is a profoundly empowering act. Minnesota is seen by many as a swing state, so voting here is an urgent matter; we must not let the will of the American majority be thwarted again. Envision the day when the entire group of extremists - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rove and others- are finally cast out of Washington, and America can realize its potential not just for power, but for goodness and justice as well. And then cast your vote, and pray.
Posted by msveum at October 26, 2004 10:46 AM
Comments
Frankly, I am surprised our faculty has been able to keep quiet for so long, but I am certainly not surprised that the nature and tone of this article professes a far left opinion.
Could we have the other side of the argument now?If only for the best interests of this liberal arts institution that values discourse and the pursuit of truth and knowledge.
Ah yes, there are no conservative faculty at Hamline, that's right. What a diversity of opinion we are fostering here; what a balance we are providing for students; what a sham.
I emplore any closet-conservative faculty member (it is ok, we are at a liberal arts institution, so you shouldn't fear stoning or public ridicule) to submit a thoughtful letter that speaks to the facts and not simply pro-Kerry rhetoric peppered with "facts" from far left websites.
At the end of the day, is the campus truly better for faculty members chiming in on these issues? Not only does it put a clear bias on those members who write in, which ultimately carries into the classroom, but it pits people against each other--students against faculty. Unless you are teaching relevant material, the 2004 Presidential election should not and need not be discussed.
Students write to the Oracle to inform, persuade, and piss off our peers; faculty write to scholarly journals to inform, persuade, and piss off your peers.
I am certain there are "higher ups" who can agree. I am certain there are those alumni who must agree. I am certain there are those who want the faculty to "shut up and teach."
PS: "Illiberal Education," Dinesh D'Souza
Posted by: John at October 26, 2004 03:36 PM
In response:
I just want to say that a presidential election is a huge issue and definitely should be discussed among students and faculty, both in the classroom and outside of it. The faculty here should be as free to express their opinions as students are, as long as they are careful to not present them as fact in the classroom. And as for the lack of conservative faculty at this school, are you really surprised? Hamline has almost zero diversity in any respect.
Posted by: Alison at October 26, 2004 08:09 PM
I intended to respond to John Arden's comments by just emailing him. (I preferred to open up a conversation with him, as I sort of agree with his notion that faculty ought not necessarily to get too involved in the Oracle's debate forum.) However, the email address noted for his comments was wrong--either by mistake or on purpose. (If a false email was given, some of the points I make--about John's courage, for instance--seem now wrong-headed.) So.... I post my response here and invite any/all self-identified conservative students to contact me personally, for further discussion, to yell at me, and/or to get some other kinds of conversations going on campus.
hi John--
we don't know one another, but I'm writing to express some cautious appreciation for your response to the online editorial letter from Mark Berkson (regarding the upcoming Pres vote).
Appreciation primarily that you speak up and do so strongly, unconcerned about "faculty reprisals" or other nonsense. What makes this, I think, a "liberal" campus is not necessarily the political leanings of any particular constituency but the willingness of all to listen, to encourage dissent, to include viewpoints from as many as are willing/able to voice an opinion in a challenging, thoughtful, engaged fashion. (More on this question of a "liberal" slant in a moment.) But, still--it might seem like you could get attacked for your views, and I appreciate that you put them out so strongly.
Appreciation secondarily that you score some points. I am probably in general agreement with you that the Oracle isn't the best forum for faculty opinions; lord knows, you get enough of those elsewhere. I myself choose to read the opinion pages and, often, to bring up issues raised there in other forums--conversations both outside and in classes. But I follow a general rule: only write in if an issue or argument raised seems entirely erroneous or egregiously hurtful. (And, in even in those instances, there are usually significant and learned challenges from fellow students--which make my responding unnecessary.) I also thought your retort witty: we do have our own playspaces for pissing off our peers... I mostly agree that faculty don't need to be taking up space in the Oracle.
And I, too, would implore conservative faculty to write in with their own responses. Or, for that matter, conservative staff, students, alumni. Open debate and rigorous thinking will make everyone's vote more informed.
All that said, I'd like to disagree in a couple of key ways.
1. I see no reason why Mark Berkson shouldn't be allowed to write in, as he is a member of this community--and, I'd hope, on the pages of the Oracle a member as respected (and as subject to challenge and disrespect) as any other. And a casual reading of his (long) letter seems to indicate that he was calling on people to think, to use their own critical skills, even as he pushed his own viewpoint. In other words, he wasn't a patronizing liberal faculty member telling "you kids" what to do; he was an impassioned thinker trying to lay out a persuasive case for his convictions. Who wouldn't want to read something like that? Or, at least, who would consider that a bad thing--even if you disagreed entirely with its conclusions?
2. There is a canard--a fancy word for "dumbass assumed truth which is actually untrue"--that a campus ought to have "diversity" in its faculty's political opinions, otherwise it isn't truly diverse. Namely, that the ostensible "liberal" slant of faculty needs a conscientious redistricting, so that more "conservatives" get hired. I'm not sure such is the case; check out this Salon article for at least some more rigorous analysis of the actual political sensibilities of college faculty.
But I'm also tempted to say: well, let's assume that college faculty are more liberal. So what? No one is blustering about CEOs or millionaires, two predominantly conservative constituencies--it's assumed that "the free market" leads to those groups being more conservative, and so all is well and good. The same market brings more liberals, perhaps, into academia. Profs don't make a lot of money, are concerned with 'improving' the minds and lives of others, are almost universally trained (in every discipline) to employ a rigorous and skeptical mindset... these are career elements that may be better-suited to those who swing left than those who swing right. (A word of caution here: see above about how exaggerated and unproven the claim that liberals control campus really is. Even our campus.)
And to call this a "diversity" issue is to water down and/or miss the point of concerns about diversity at Hamline. Diversity shouldn't be used in the casual "different things" sense; if that was the kind of diversity we wanted, then we would be looking to height, weight, regional backgrounds, political leanings, and other merely personal traits in the membership of our shared community. Instead, we're interested in a more social and institutional version of "diversity": one which recognizes long histories and continuing situations of separation or segregation of some sort or another. For instance, college campuses have historically tended (and still tend) to attract students from higher socioeconomic statuses; many colleges explicitly seek, therefore, a diversity in their student population to redress that imbalance, to provide access to groups who haven't had access before. Hamline, for instance, has a large population of first-generation students--those who are the first in their families to go to college. That's an underrepresented group, a group whose exclusion (whether conscious or, more often, simply a byproduct of socialization) ought to be challenged because their inclusion improves the quality of our community. (As well as the equality of that community....) Similar issues--perhaps even more significant social imbalances--exist in regard to race/ethnicity, to disability. The numbers of Democrats or Conservatives on the faculty is irrelevant in this regard.
3. Still reading? You said maybe we ought to "shut up and teach." Nice turn of phrase for the O'Reilly Factor, and I'm tempted to respond in kind, but--instead, since I liked your letter, allow me to retort. Teaching isn't value free; I have opinions, they shape how I teach--and I, like my colleagues, as I strive to be a good teacher, strive to make clear how values inflect and affect my approaches to subject matter (and to invite/include/incite critical challenges to these approaches and these values, as well as to the content of the course). Teaching doesn't occur only in the classroom; compassionate citizens of the world blah blah, but also: we see our critical thinking in the classroom as simply a model for how we all ought to think and act and engage in our everyday everywhere lives. The idea that we walk into a classroom and it's an isolated space for pure content, untouched by the concerns of the campus or the Cities or the world, is just idiotic. Teaching doesn't occur in a vacuum, and what we teach isn't vacuum-packed, either. Content, method, values, politics, and everyday life are all messed up together in academic pursuits. And well they should be.
I'd add, finally, that the only thing that gets me mad is a call for me to shut up. I actually like uncivil discourse--as long as it provokes discourse. "Shut up" wants to shut down debate, wants to close off challenges and keep minds closed. (That's why O'Reilly is such a boring putz.) Tell me to wise up, or to fuck off--I can live with that, and come back at you.
I'd be happy to talk with you--or to help you (or any conservatives on campus) put together an event or forum or simply an exchange of letters to continue this (or other) debates, so that you feel like you had a strong voice on campus. Or simply so that you felt like some liberal faculty member--'cause I am at [bold] *least* [/bold] a "liberal," if not further left than that--was paying attention to your concerns.
Oh, and D'Souza? He's a real asshole, and that'd be okay if he was a smart asshole, but his book (and most of his work) is full of shoddy analysis, weak and unrigorous evidence-gathering, and cheap illogical argumentation. If you're going to cite a source to a college community, at least pick a good one.
best,
Mike Reynolds
Asst. Prof, English
Ps: only sending this to you--I'd be happy to publish it along with the string of Oracle responses, but... I mostly just wanted to engage with your strong challenge.
Pps: obviously, the above changed, after johnarden@hotmail.com came up as a false address.
Posted by: Mike Reynolds at October 27, 2004 10:41 AM
I won't address the specific points of either discussion, but I will throw in my two cents into why the "conservative talk" is toned down. (I could throw in examples from my first year that prove this, but I won't because it is long winded...)
Although I still consider myself "conservative," Hamline in many ways has toned me down. I was involved in College Republicans my first year, and then I declined in my leanings towards the "party." I attribute this to a) not caring as much as I once did, and b) where was instigating debate with my peers on politics going to get me?
The Hamline atmosphere in general is open to most points of view. Conservatives are not oppressed on campus and no one should claim they are, they are not because they are not. I have heard in many classes some more conservative points in class and it an opinion just like any other.
But what happnes is that there does exist the "Hamline status quo." It is a very conforming sort of thing. Look at it this way...in general, what political belief is going to be supported more on campus? In general, this will be the more liberal side.
And that is where the I think the intent of John's response was. Looking at it strictly from a student life standpoint, there is no true supporting structure to foster those conservative viewpoints. Both College Dems and College Republicans have reactivated and then died multiple times in the past 4 years. The liberal side can survive very well with this because there are other student groups that exist on campus to get involved with. What a conservative equiavlent to Amnesty, Students for Peace, etc. would be I do not know, but that is the basics for why there tends to be a lack of the consevative opinions. If and when it is done, it much more informal.
Posted by: Jonny G at October 27, 2004 04:11 PM
Dear John,
When my letter, “The Importance of the Vote,” was posted in the Oracle Online, I was looking forward to seeing the responses, including intelligently written opposing views that would allow for a healthy debate. It is fine if you want to disagree with what I say, but I was disappointed to see that you fail to address a single argument that I made.
Despite that, I want to respond to a few of the things you said. First, I’d like to know which of my opinions you consider “far left” (such labels are generally unhelpful, by the way). Much of what I said can be found in the writings of long-time Republicans. Remember, conservatives are supposed to be people concerned with fiscal responsibility, opposed to “nation building” abroad, and committed to preserving civil liberties by keeping the government out of our private lives. A wide range of conservatives have written strong criticisms of this administration on the grounds that it continuously violates fundamental conservative principles (I have a number of these articles in my office if you would like to see them). In addition, your letter mentions “pro-Kerry” rhetoric. Where do you see that? Never in my letter do I endorse Kerry or any candidate (although I should be free to do so).
Second, I ask that you make up your mind – do you want faculty members to submit a letter in response, as you indicate in your fourth paragraph, or should we all just keep quiet, as you advise in your next paragraph? If John Kerry wrote that, he’d be labeled a “flip-flopper.”
Your belief that faculty members should stay silent is the most disturbing part of your letter. On what principle are we required to renounce the privileges and responsibilities of American citizenship when we decide to become teachers? To members of what other profession would you make such a demand? I remind you – I did not make this statement in a classroom. In fact, my comments were solicited by a student organization (and not originally intended for the Oracle).
But that is beside the point. You seem to believe that what we do here at Hamline is shut off from the rest of the world. Yet our university and college mottoes themselves emphasize the importance of citizenship and making a difference. How can you possibly state that for those of us not teaching “relevant material,” the election should not be discussed?
First of all, as I state in the letter, virtually everything we teach is related in some way to the issues of this election (see the sections on science and economics, for example). Second, this election is profoundly important. We are fortunate to live in a democracy where we can have these discussions about our collective future. In times like these, it is irresponsible to keep silent.
Regarding the condescending “shut up and teach” quote at the end of your article, I would ask if you think articulating a political opinion and being an effective teacher are mutually exclusive. When I am in the classroom, I am completely focused on teaching, an activity that I love. My political activities outside the classroom do not adversely affect my commitment or approach to teaching (any more than my family obligations do). If we encourage our students to get involved politically, how can we remain passive observers?
I echo your desire to see the other side of the argument, and I welcome any member of this community to write a letter that responds to mine or defends the Bush Administration. That is precisely what is supposed to happen in an election year, and Hamline is precisely the kind of place (an intellectual community) where it should happen. This brings me to your point about the seeming lack of conservative faculty members at Hamline.
First, this is not a conservative-liberal issue. There is plenty of disagreement among faculty members on virtually every issue (we argue all of the time), and there are many faculty members who, on many issues, hold what would normally be considered a “conservative position.” The point here is that, in many ways, Bush is not a conservative in the traditional sense; a good case can be made that he is ultimately a radical. The real question is, Why are there so few Bush supporters among the faculty? That would require a separate letter, but my short answer would be – Look back at the first paragraph of my original letter.
Given the values and commitments that we have as teachers at a liberal arts college, and the fact that the Bush Administration stands in opposition to most of them, it should not surprise you that there are so few Bush supporters. But if you think we’re wrong, then go ahead and write a letter. A good one this time, with real arguments. We expect as much from Hamline students.
Mark Berkson
Department of Religion
Posted by: Mark Berkson at October 28, 2004 12:05 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)