Propaganda, Patriotism, and the War on Terrorism
On college campuses across the nation, efforts are being made to silence professors who encourage students to probe the history of U.S. foreign policy in the effort to understand the September 11th attacks.
Recent articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education report that students have complained to deans about professors critical of U.S. foreign policy, and boards of trustees, deans, and college presidents have drafted resolutions and issued public statements condemning their views. Professors have been shouted down, received volumes of hate mail and, on some campuses, death threats. In one case, a trustee publicly invited a professor "to take a hike."
Historically, such attacks on free speech have risen sharply in times of national crisis -- precisely when a full range of views is sorely needed. They are particularly disturbing on campuses of higher education that should be strongholds of people who defend independent thinking.
The nature of the arguments offered against these dissenting voices are very troubling; so too their political effects. The arguments fall into two groups. First, professors are charged with showing no concern for the feeling of others: they lack taste and judgment; they are insensitive, self-indulgent and offend others at a time when emotions are raw. In being so inattentive to their students' emotional sensitivities, dissenting faculty violate the trust students place in them. Now is not the time for critique, but for emotional nurturing, reassurance and national solidarity.
Second, professors are charged with offering excuses for the attacks. Their examination of the role the United States may have played in creating conditions that make terrorist acts more likely amounts to a justification of the acts themselves.
There is an emotional tyranny at play here, and its effect is to obstruct processes of understanding that alone will aid us in our ongoing debate over how to come to terms with terrorism. What do I mean by tyranny? In the first instance, we are being told that feelings alone are appropriate now. It is too early, indeed, it is tasteless, to begin to sort through our role in the complex factors that brought these people to their heinous acts.
But understanding is crucial to wise action, and action, as we see in each morning's news, is most certainly being undertaken in our name. While we are being asked just to feel, the administration and its congressional allies hurry to pass laws that threaten our civil liberties at home, and engage in a massive war effort likely to foster greater resentment abroad.
What stands out about American universities today? Is it the academic opportunities offered to students, experienced faculty, or strong sense of community? Or...perhaps they have lost their focus. It is not uncommon for universities to focus their efforts and budgets elsewhere; by building state of the art gyms, for example, remodeling luxury dorms, grooming campuses, or creating more management positions. College students and professors alike are subject to the nationally occurring changes in higher level education. Colleges are becoming commercialized and tuition is rising, but is the quality of education improving? In “Why We Should Fear University, Inc.”, Fredrik DeBoer is able to provide a personal take on the issue of corporate domination
Terrorism – This is a word that many people are terrified of. When a terrorist attack occurs, people’s daily routines are shattered. Things change instantaneously the moment the bomb goes of. When we think about a terrorist attack that really impacted the world, we immediately think about 9/11. On that day many people were hurt directly and indirectly. People were disorientated and scared. The moment there is change, the world panics. Unfortunately, 9/11 was not the only day where people panicked. On 1988, the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 occurred. This terrorist attack was not as massive as 9/11; but, it did leave scares especially to the Syracuse University community.
Two professors of different backgrounds, Mike Rose of California, and Gerald Graff, of Illinois, discuss the problems college students face today in America. Though similar in slight variations, both professors view the problem in different regards and prepare solutions that solve what they feel to be the heart of this academic problem.
In today’s society the word “terrorism” has gone global. We see this term on television, in magazines and even from other people speaking of it. In their essay “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11”, published in 2002, Clark R. Chapman and Alan W. Harris argue that the reaction of the American officials, people and the media after the attacks of 9/11 was completely irrational due to the simple fact of fear. Chapman and Harris jump right into dismembering the irrational argument, often experienced with relationships and our personal analysis. They express how this argument came about from the terrorist being able to succeed in “achieving one major goal, which was spreading fear” among the American people (Chapman & Harris, para.1). The supporters of the irrational reaction argument state that because “Americans unwittingly cooperated with the terrorist in achieving the major goal”, the result was a widespread of disrupted lives of the Americans and if this reaction had been more rational then there would have been “less disruption in the lives of our citizens” (Chapman & Harris, para. 1).
As students and parents are looking into colleges, their minds need to be open and free of biases. Sanford Ungar’s essay can help broaden the mindset of families, and even help make a decision to attend a liberal arts college. Ungar uses various techniques in his essay that make it effective. Not only does he discredit the misperceptions of liberal arts, but he also approaches his writing with etiquette that appeals to his readers. In his essay, Ungar uses three main appeals: reason, emotion, and ethics...
The conflict on how students should be taught and how well is addressed in the book, College: What It Was, Is, And Should Be by Andrew Delbanco. The book addresses what college is for, describes the origins of colleges, and explains who goes and who does not. Colleges started with a religious aspect and have formed the foundation of contemporary, liberal education. Colleges are also meant to help an individual understand what inspires them and understand the social implications of ideas. Delbanco says that learning should bring to bear in a situation where students have to respect, consult and aid each other. This point is highlighted when Delbanco declares, “A college should not be a haven from worldly contention, but a place where young people fight out among and within themselves contending ideas of the meaningful life, and where they discover that self-interest need not be at ...
In recent news, Milo Yiannopolous had planned a visit to the UC Berkeley campus at the request of the student Republican body. Many minority students who were familiar with the content of Yiannopolous' visit planned to protest what they viewed as hate speech. Berkeley has now become the site of violent protests between groups such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter against conservative groups in support of Yiannopolous and President Trump where both groups fight in order to obtain the moral high ground without actually communicating and collaborating with each other with ways to stop the fighting and violence. This leads us to a case where we have two groups shouting at each other without actually listening to what the opposing side has to say. This division is not just specific to the campuses of elite universities now but to everyday society as well. With the recent presidential election in the U.S. as well has the primary and caucus elections politics came to extremes in the nation. Reports of hate groups attacking minorities at Trump rallies and terroristic threats of death against white people by leftist organizations have become daily occurrences. This conflict between ideals has thus led to negative consequences on everyone involved being felt through educational institutions, places of employment, and in many communities
September 11th. In Colorado, school officials demonstrate the new rush to suppress any un- American sentiment by “forcing a student to remove an upside down American flag sewn on the seat of her jeans [calling it] an obscene insult to Americanism” (Leo). Blinded by their patriotism, these school officials disregarded the student’s first amendment rights. This same eagerness to attack free-speakers also occurred at the University of New Mexico. In this highly publicized incident, Prof Richard Berthold told his class “Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon has my vote” (Leo). Upon hearing such an outrageous statement, many Americans are demanding the professor be suspended or fired. Americans’ post September 11t...
Colleges and universities control their faculties and students’ actions by shaming and criticizing their faculties and students on social media when the faculty’s or student’s actions cause distresses to other college students. They also control their faculties’ or students’ actions by firing the faculty or suspending the student. In an article that is posted on the website Newsweek, Nina Burleigh states that “American college campuses are starting to resemble George Orwell’s Oceania with its Thought Police, or East Germany under the Stasi. College newspapers have been muzzled and trashed, and students are disciplined or suspended for “hate speech,” while exponentially more are being shamed and silenced on social media by their peers. Professors quake at the possibility of accidentally offending any student and are rethinking syllabi and restricting class discussions to only the most anodyne topics.” The idea American colleges and universities are compared to the Stasi, the secret police of East Germany, or a thought police shows how dangerous and restrictive college campuses have become. This quote also cites the fact colleges have tried to censor their own newspaper as one of the examples how dangerous campuses have become. The fact that colleges try to censor their own newspaper and to intimidate their professors is troubling because this fact indicates that American colleges and
The question of whether or not college students have become too “sensitive” is one that is currently being debated in the United States. This issue, which has seemed to increase in the past few years, is one that has angered many due to the fact that what this world needs is straight-forward commentary. In “The Coddling of the American Mind,” by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, the issue of college students being too “coddled” is discussed in many different aspects. Similarly, an article published by Scott Stump in Today Parents shows an example of how the effect of political correctness on these students has caused a realization that we are in dire need of some desensitizing. Validating one another, these two articles prove that the coddling
In the beginning, the student movement was largely influenced by the non-violence aspect of the Civil Rights movement. Colleges and universities, at that time, had a view of “In Loco Parentis” ; which means, in place of parents or in other words, the faculty and staff acted as the parents. At University of California-Berkeley , the students were frustrated with having their freedoms restricted; therefore, they started protesting. In the beginning, the University officials took away ...
In the article a question is asked by Micheal Bloomberg, “Isn't the purpose of a university to stir discussion, not silence it?”(Medina 91). Trigger warnings cause students voices to be silenced to prevent emotional disturbance. Universities are shifting their focus from the importance of curriculum to students emotional stability. Issues that should be discussed regarding current events are being disregarded which means, students are not discussing probable solutions to everyday problems. When students leave American universities unlike in the classrooms, civilians discuss issues that are happening currently to find solution regardless of the distress it may cause
When a giant explosion ripped through Alfred P. Murrah federal building April 19,1995, killing 168 and wounding hundreds, the United States of America jumped to a conclusion we would all learn to regret. The initial response to the devastation was all focused of middle-eastern terrorists. “The West is under attack,”(Posner 89), reported the USA Today. Every news and television station had the latest expert on the middle east telling the nation that we were victims of jihad, holy war. It only took a few quick days to realize that we were wrong and the problem, the terrorist, was strictly domestic. But it was too late. The damage had been done. Because America jumped to conclusions then, America was later blind to see the impending attack of 9/11. The responsibility, however, is not to be placed on the America people. The public couldn’t stand to hear any talk of terrorism, so in turn the White House irresponsibly took a similar attitude. They concentrated on high public opinion and issues that were relevant to Americans everyday. The government didn’t want to deal with another public blunder like the one in Oklahoma City. A former FBI analyst recalls, “when I went to headquarters (Washington, D.C.) later that year no one was interested in hearing anything about Arab money connections unless it had something to do with funding domestic groups. We stumbled so badly on pinpointing the Middle East right off the bat on the Murrah bombing. No one wanted to get caught like that again,”(Posner 90). The result saw changes in the counter terrorism efforts; under funding, under manning, poor cooperation between agencies, half-hearted and incompetent agency official appointees and the list goes on. All of these decisions, made at the hands of the faint-hearted, opened the doors wide open, and practically begged for a terrorist attack. So who’s fault is it? The public’s for being
Light, J. R. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Historical Significance: The September 11th, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, orchestrated by Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, were the events that launched the U.S. War on Terrorism. Al-Qaeda’s attack on the United States was carried out by members of radicalized Islamic groups, whose objective was to spread jihad against the secular influence of the West. This tragic event provided the historical b...