Many believe this appointment to be justified, such as the Board of Trustees as well as Dean Ann Kirschner. And that's completely fine. However, as Kirschner says in her statement, CUNY is a place where complex issues and points of view are discussed and debated in order to solve the issues in our world. To this end, "it is important that multiple points of view be heard." This seems to be a good statement. A great one, in fact, for supporting the appointment of someone with a sordid military history and dubious moral standing.
But that's just my opinion. One that should be heard, and allowed to be voiced under the First Amendment. It's great that we respect all points of view, or at least feign to. In fact, it's come to my attention that there is only respect for views that agree with our own or which are convenient to our ends (see also: the appointment of Petraeus as a political move; more on this later).
In this way, I don't see a respect for all points of view. Six protestors were arrested for "inciting a riot, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct." In fact, one of my professors was at this so-called "violent" riot. She said it was a peaceful protest, marked by forced police intervention for nearly no reason. All I see is police brutality in the force of peaceful protest and rightful voicing of opinions that deserve to be heard. I see the silencing of those who don't support the appointment of someone who they see as a war criminal, because the way they are going about it seems "disgusting" and that protestors are "crossing a line" and being "childish" in their protests. Well, I don't know how to word this nicely, but sometimes to make yourself heard, it isn't pretty. It isn't nice. It's called protest for a reason. I feel nothing but pride as I watch my fellow students express their opinions about Petraeus's appointment, because they are voicing an opinion that has a right to be heard, whether or not others agree with it. It's not childish to demand your constitutionally-endorsed right to freedom of speech to be respected. I wonder how societal change can be achieved without those who believe in freedom of speech, regardless of consequences.
In my opinion, Petraeus's appointment has nothing to do with his academic merit. It has nothing to do with what he could or could not teach us. It has to do entirely with CUNY's reputation, image, and renown. It has to do with the supposed repairing of Petraeus's destroyed public image after the scandal which cost him his job as head of the CIA. How generous of him to teach us for just $1 (but only after the uproar surrounding his would-be salary of more than $200,000).
I feel Petraeus's presence on an academic campus to be the beginning of the end for open academia. It signals to me, as my teacher put it "the militarization of education". This terrifies me. For as long as I've known, education has been the one freedom we have to express our thoughts and opinions. What will happen when education is manipulated towards the ends of the military? Where will free speech go? It seems, where it has been going. In the gutter.
To address the criminal charges against Petraeus: although he has not been tried (and never will be), I refuse to acknowledge his innocence. He will never be tried for his war crimes, and that is an injustice to society. There are laws to break (Henry David Thoreau's *gasp* tax evasion in the name of revolution against the state's tyranny and oppression of the people), and then there is the human rights violation of the torture methods used in Iraq, and the needless many others killed at Petraeus's hands. I don't deny those who claim he was just following orders. So were those who persecuted and exterminated the Jews in concentration camps during World War II. But I don't accept that just because he was following orders, he is innocent.
Henry David Thoreau believed in the importance of the individual. The individual contributes to the rise and maintenance of the state. It is on many individuals that laws are maintained and the state continues running. In Thoreau's opinion, the individual must make his true opinion heard, regardless of the consequences. Not to do this would be a moral disgrace. Moreover, to blindly acquiesce to the majority without thought would be to affirm the government's right to oppress people.
Today, sitting in the Honors Lounge, I heard students talking about this issue, saying that Petraeus isn't going anywhere and the protestors are being "annoying" and should just give up. This passivity irritates me, but more so worries me. If we, as students, passively accept what the administration, government, and society says without question, we are doing ourselves and our school a disservice. In fact, the whole point of school and education as a whole should be to question our previously held notions of the moral authority held by those in power. That students are inconveniencing the school and the community is exactly what they need to be doing. Change comes about inconveniently. The arguments used against these students, that they are being "disruptive," is the same argument used to silence those who inconvenience the majority (see also: those who fight for gender, race, and economic equality; those who fight against/to dismantle the societal hierarchy). These people deserve to be heard just as much as Petraeus, or anyone else. If we are to be truly supportive of the idea that many points of view should be heard, we shouldn't be silencing those who disagree with the faculty appointment of Petraeus. Just because he has been approved by faculty doesn't null the weight of the charges brought against him, nor does it make the dissent among students and faculty impermissible. We shouldn't just sit by and watch as those in power make decisions that affect us. We are a part of this institution, and we should have a say in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment