The "Patriotic" Attack on Democracy and Higher Education By Robert Jensen Based on the mail of the past month, a lot of people still want me fired from my teaching position at the University of Texas for my antiwar writings in the aftermath of Sept. 11. Many accuse me of being "anti-American," but ironically it is their call to limit political debate that is anti-American, for it abandons the core commitment of a democracy to the sovereignty of the people and the role of citizens in forming public policy. Some of the folks writing to me -- and to the president of my university -- do not mince words: Jensen is not supporting the war effort. So, he should be fired. Other people, perhaps aware that such a call violates any reasonable conception of free speech and academic freedom, take a slightly more nuanced position: Because Jensen is so political in public, he cannot possibly teach in a fair and objective manner (though none of them has ever visited my classroom). They reach the same conclusion: He should be fired. Both arguments are attacks on any meaningful conception of democracy and higher education. Let's test the logic of those calling for my firing. In several essays between Sept. 11 and Oct. 7 (posted on CounterPunch and at the No War Collective site, I (along with many others in the antiwar movement) argued against military retaliation, on moral and practical grounds -- innocent civilians abroad likely will die, making future terrorist attacks more likely by deepening the anger and resentment against the United States in the Arab and Muslim world. Once the war began, I continued to oppose the reckless Bush policy that has created a humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan as the war blocks significant food distribution and the civilian death toll mounts. Events in the world suggest this analysis coming from opponents of the war has been painfully accurate. Throughout, I have suggested that Americans should confront the ugly history of U.S. attacks on civilians in such places as Southeast Asia, Latin America and the Middle East to understand why so many around the world see us not as the defender of freedom but as a violent bully. If I had supported the president's decisions and endorsed a military strike, would anyone have suggested I should be fired? Clearly not; many academics have done that without criticism. Whatever the merits of either the prowar or antiwar position, one thing is inescapable: Both are political. So, my correspondents' real objections cannot be that I am political, but instead that my political ideas are unacceptable to them. That means their actual argument is that in times of crisis, certain analysis and ideas are not acceptable and certain views should be purged from public universities, which sounds pretty anti-American. It is of course dangerous to label any idea "anti-American," because the term suggests that there can be political positions that are fixed forever. But the foundation of the U.S. system is (or should be) an active citizenry; being a citizen should mean more than just voting every few years. We have the right -- maybe even the obligation -- to involve ourselves in the formation of public policy, and in that process no one can claim that some proposals cannot be voiced. If that's true, then those calling for my firing are anti-American to the bone; their patriotism is supremely unpatriotic. In my writing and speaking since Sept. 11, I have not supported terrorism or minimized the depth of the pain that Americans feel. I simply have suggested that it is important to understand the reasons that terrorists were willing to fly jets into buildings. Our president's claim that terrorists "hate our freedoms" is embarrassingly simplistic, to the point of being childish. It is time to face honestly the way in which U.S. foreign policy -- so often cruel, callous and indifferent to the suffering of innocent people -- must be understood as part of this story. Those are political arguments. No matter what one thinks of the soundness of the arguments, expressing them is an act of citizenship. In a democracy, we do not surrender to leaders the right to make policy undisturbed by the people. If people want to eliminate spirited political discussion from the universities, what is left of higher education? If they want to punish the exercise of citizenship, what is left of democracy? Robert Jensen is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, a member of the Nowar Collective and author of the forthcoming book Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream. He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.
He has not just 'simply suggested' that we 'understand' the terrorists, he argues against war, i.e. against defeding our country. That's what pisses people off, not his desire to review our country's errors. I still want to know what 'solution' the anti-war activists suggest. To recommend a political solution with the terrorists is no less childish than Bush's statement. No realistic solutions are offered because there are no other choices. Regardless of past or current crimes of our country (which do deserve attention), we must protect ourselves. We cannot be swayed by the fact that it angers those who are taught by their autocratic regimes to hate us.
This is about the only thing that this guy wrote that I agree with. He does not deserve to be fired. I think he is exagerating about the humanitarian catastrophe that our war effort is creating is a distortion. Surely, things are worth but they were disastrous beforehand. Our aim is to make it better.
I respect Jensen's willingness to "understand" the issues as to what is fueling this anti-us sentiment. But I do feel having a strictly anti-war sentiment will not help us in the current situation. Military action is needed after the attack on our homeland, yet we also need to address the roots of the problem, while raking the leaves that have already fallen with military action.
This happens on both sides. On the other side of the coin, the UC Berkeley student government tried to raise the rent (to unreasonable rates) of the local newspaper unless it took back an article expressing a viewpoint they didn't like (I believe the article was pro-war). It's the "free speech is good unless it contradicts my view" philosophy.
Of course he shouldn't be fired. There is nothing to be gained by stifling this professor's speech. And the message it would send to students is a terrible one - don't question the government's actions, or you will suffer the consequences. It makes a mockery of free speech.
Go professor go! In response to those who don't immediately see the logic of the anti-war stance. I don't think it even matters what the anti-war movements stance is on what we should do in response to 9/11. What matters most is that everyone's right be protected to express their views. It's in the exchange of ideas that we will find the truth. The problem with our country at large is that most folks just don't want to be bothered with the work involved.
I agree fully that he has every right to say what he wants to say, and express whatever his beliefs are without repression or reprocussion. However, this is merely a highly public showing of what goes on in every walk of life. If you go into any office in the country, there are people who have been repremanded for saying certain things. People will be fired for speaking badly against their boss, or the company, or just for saying something that the "higher ups" didn't like. It's just the way the world works. There is a certain level of speech freedom that is cut short because of your position as a member of a company, an apartment tenant, whatever. Just like one could be killed for going to a corner of Harlem and screaming for white power (Die Hard 3), we must realize that there are reprocussions for our speech. We CAN say whatever we like, but there is a certain risk to whatever we say, and there is no guarantee that you will not face scrutiny for your stand. The professor is in a unique position. Universities typically allow professors to take any stand they wish in the name of academia. Furthermore, he is a professor of journalism at a public university. Being a Journalism scholar presents him with many of the responsibilities, freedoms and duties of an editor -- he theoretically should have license to say what he likes, but that's not necessarily the case. People have been fired from newspapers for saying controversial things. And seeing as how he is at a public university, there is the government tie-in that discounts a certain level of criticism.
But of all the places where contrarian viewpoints should be the norm (is this oxymoronic? ) it's the university. But who am I kidding, universities at their best produce critical, truth seeking individuals, and at their worst, professional sheep. I'm not suprised the professor is catching heat, just disappointed.
The man is not only a fool, he's a liar. Specifically, when he implies that our military action will increase the suffering (famine) of civilians there, that is simply not true. It has been well documented that the Taliban regularly loots aid shipments intended for civilians, the drought has been there for three years, and civil war for over 20 years. The Taliban have even started assaulting aid workers. We are going to put an end to that, and when we have control of the ground we will begin aid convoys that will prevent a famine this winter. The notion that our military action is causing famine is simply a lie - on the contrary, our military action is probably the only thing that will prevent it. And he is a fool if he thinks that there is any nonmilitary solution to this conflict. Al Qaeda does not have an ambassador to the US. The Taliban has not cooperated with us for over 5 years, and they aren't about to start now. Iran and Iraq will only cooperate if their interests (which are contrary to ours) are served. Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Yemen will only respond to threats or force. And no matter what we do the current generation of young Arab men - virtually all of whom have been brainwashed with anti-US and anti-Israel propaganda for 30 years - will hate us. Even if we pulled out of the middle east completely and didn't prop up a single regime there, they'd still hate us because that is what their own leaders have been telling them to do their entire lives. That said, this fool should not be fired. He has a right to his opinion, and as much as I or anyone else disagrees with it (or with the probability that he's teaching it to college students) he has a right to voice it. Hell, he makes for good fodder in debates nowadays...
yeah only a couple hundred thousand kids will die this winter due to no food. thats all. food shipments have to start NOW. Winter will begin in a few weeks. and taliban taking away aid supplies is pure crap. that has ONLY been reported since AFTER the bombings. your the liar i'd say.
boy, I have found documentation of Taliban interference in relief efforts prior to Sep 11, 2001. A retraction would be appreciated. <A HREF="http://www.usaid.gov/hum_response/ofda/00annual/afghanistan.html">Afghanistan COMPLEX EMERGENCY</A> Here is an example of the friendly treatment that the Taliban gives to the civilian population. <A HREF="http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/06/15/7804.html">TALIBAN RAGES IN YAKAVLANGA </A> <A HREF="http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/820e9db74fad1279c1256a3a005445dd?Opendocument">Situation of human rights in Afghanistan</A> "......3. Condemns all interference with the delivery of humanitarian relief supplies and the substantial restrictions introduced by the Taliban on the operations of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, and calls on all Afghan parties to ensure safe and unimpeded access for and to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance, in particular the supply of food, medicines, shelter and health care, throughout Afghanistan; ...........(g) To fulfil their obligations and commitments regarding the safety of all personnel of diplomatic missions, the United Nations and other international organizations and non-governmental organizations, as well as of their premises in Afghanistan, and to cooperate, fully and without discrimination on grounds of gender, nationality or religion, with the United Nations and associated bodies, as well as with other humanitarian organizations, agencies and non-governmental organizations, in order to facilitate full resumption of their cooperation; ......" Mango
People have the right to ask someone to be censored. Its part of their free speech. He's "wrong" in the same way by saying their undemocratic by expressing themselves. Majority rules in a democracy. Minorities have protected rights, but I don't think a position at UT is one of them. Just because you're educated, doesn't give you the right to things. I don't know if he should be fired or not. He should be judged on his merits. His political views are a part of this. Its up to the students, and citizens of the state of Texas to decide his faith. You have the right to say what you want, but as a citizen of the state of Texas..it is my right to voice my opinion. He has been paid with my tuition dollars. I say fire his butt, but I think it should be up to the students and faculty to decide.
If he <i>is</i> fired, I'm sure he'll be hired by UC-Berkely within a week . . . probably at a higher salary too Although I am not in favor of him being fired, but it would probably work out well for him/his cause and arguments.
boy: The Taliban also, in the past, promoted the growing of opium in place of food stuffs. I think that's equivalent to starving civilians, since the wealth generated through opium certainly didn't go to the purchase of importing food for their citizens.
Mango, congratualtions on your fact finding. The Taliban violated human rights and contributed to starvation before 9/11/01. You failed, however, to fact find regarding boy's most important assertion that hundreds of thousands of Afghans will die due to the "collateral" effects of our war effort. Are we to assume that you don't dispute the conclusion with regard to the estimated additional hundreds of thousands who will now starve? Surely you aren't satisfied for the US to be merely no worse than the Taliban.
I love it when a guy like Jensen gets called out for his ridiculous ideas. They never fail to scream about the freedom of speech. Hey nobody is saying you CANT say whatever you want, but to think there are no consequences to what you say is just plain asinine. I find it hard to believe anyone with a college education could actually believe what he is saying. I really believe he is saying all this crap in a devils advocate type way, and trying to stir the pot in an attempt to get us to further think out this issue. I have NO problem with that, critical thinking is a good thing. But defending US citizens life/freedom is job number 1A for the US government and they are going to take the appropriate measures to make sure these rodents get exterminated.
I wonder what Jensen thought about the UT Law prof (Graglia, I think was his name) who made some comments deemed offensive by some (in re affirmative action) and was then targeted for removal by certain 'activists'? I wonder if he was as gung ho about academic freedom during that affair?
I wonder how some of you felt about John Rocker getting suspended for the racist comments he made. I'm guessing you were arguing free speech.
