On 25 Oct 2001, at 9:29, Kakki wrote: > No > one has commented on the students on a number of campuses being banned from > flying American flags, putting up signs that say "Proud to be an American," and > having pro-American rallies. This is more my point than anything - the either > subtle or overt control of students personal beliefs, etc. How do those actions > relate to speech codes, racism and date rate? If they do, I've missed the > connection.
I'll take this on. Look specifically at the cases listed on the FIRE web site concerning pro- American messages in dorms, department offices, rallies, etc. http://www.thefire.org/issues/terror_original.php3 There are a total of five cases. Five. And only two of them involve students. And in three of the cases there was an apology and/or revocation of the policy. (Of course, if you have another source that points to a greater number than one rally and one dorm incident, let's see it.) I think it's irresponsible for the FIRE folks to just say that this is the tip of the iceberg without showing us the money. In fact one writer from Penn commented that Kors is prone to "hyperbolic rhetoric and melodramatic narrative" - http//www.upenn.edu/gazette/0199/0199student.html (This article is actually a very revealing look at Kors and his nemesis at the time of the "water buffalo" incident at Penn, Sheldon Hackney.) I read other comments last night that Kors' histrionics undermine the otherwise cogent and thorough presentation in his book. I still however want to read the book for myself. This is certainly not an attempt to excuse the cases where it did happen. I think its wrongheaded to have these types of policies at public institutions. (Private ones are another story in my book.) I am also a believer in the old adage of following the money. Any university with a significant international student population (and the tuition/alumni dollars that come with those students) would have had some discussion about how to keep those students. Some obviously made some bad choices about what might be offensive or not. It doesn't mean that there is some organized effort to stifle Pro-American speech. And they were not the only ones. Leaders in all walks of industry in our country have made some misguided choices since 9/11 whether it be the language they use ("crusade" and "Infinite Justice") or policies about wearing ribbons (LAPD). But there are thousands of colleges in this country. Let's not indict them all or generalize about some conspiracy because of one web site. Especially when you can't even be certain you are seeing all of the facts. These guys represent one side in their presentation of these cases. Who speaks for the administrations' view? What if the poster belonging to the student at Central Michigan University had some other comment on it in addition to the American flag? Would it be in FIRE's interest to tell us? Not to mention the roles that conservative foundations are playing in compelling students to participate in activities which will purposefully piss off liberals on campus. Check out the comments from the former editor of Swathmore's conservative paper, "Common Sense" on page 2 of this story. http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/02/19feature.html (The story is a pretty good read that is fairly balanced I think.) My point is that there are many sides to this story and more than a couple of organizations that have a hand in it on both sides of the political spectrum. And each side will spin their view however they need to to support their position. It doesn't make either side more the bearer of the truth than the other. And I already doubt anyone will address this issue because even > here on the JMDL, it is perceived as politcally not popular by some to be > pro-American or not anti-war so certain speech once again will be inherently > stifled. > Please explain to me how speech is being stifled on this list, particularly since, it seems (at least to me anyway) that most of the people on the list (just like the nation) have been in favor of the war action, certainly pro- American and patriotic, with a smaller number of people who have been vocal about being pacifist. Brenda
