|
Yellow ribbons
pasted on cars is the least of the support given to the military
by Americans. In a blog, Laurence
Vance reports on third-graders singing "Thank You Soldiers."
Stephan
Kinsella reports an airplane flight attendant thanking members
of the military on board "for their service."
These reports
encourage me to report on an incident about which I had previously
decided to keep quiet, for there may be a nationwide trend going
on here that should be brought out into the open. Of even greater
importance is a serious intellectual issue. Is support of the military
a political action or is it a neutral action? Can one separate support
for the military personnel from what the military does, or from
its obedience to military actions that one finds objectionable?
This story
and the debate on these questions will be told without my editorializing.
Instead I will display the contents of e-mails. They contain the
debate. They contain my side of it, and they contain that of my
opponents.
The story began
on February 7 at 9:25 a.m. when I got an e-mail from a committee
of the School of Management (SOM) at University at Buffalo. This
is where I used to work. The committee is called Strengthen Our
Sense of Community Committee. It informed me
"The
UB School of Management SSCC (Strengthen Our Sense Of Community
Committee) is working with AMillionThanks.org to send thank-you
notes to members of our military (active, reserve and veterans).
During the week of February 7 to 11, there will be a table set
up in the Alfiero Center Atrium. Please stop down and write a
brief note of appreciation and gratitude to send to our men and
women serving our country. We have over 200 note cards to fill
out, please spread the word!"
Six members
of the committee signed this appeal.
At 10:11 a.m.,
I sent a bluntly worded e-mail to the Dean of the SOM:
"The
SSCC sent me this strange request. I don't know whose idea this
was, but it's a bad idea. The UB School of Management should not
be involved in politics! This kind of thing supports the military,
but such support is a political thing. A huge number of people
object to using the military in such ventures as Iraq and Afghanistan,
as well as many, many other places in the world. Therefore, such
support coming from UB definitely takes a political position that
is not neutral. The School has no business taking such a stance.
I won't wash the School's dirty linen in public, but if this idea
is not dropped, I surely will inform the Provost and the President
of the University."
The Dean replied
to me that night at 11:44 p.m., writing
"Thank
you for your e-mail. I appreciate the concern you have expressed.
I wish to assure you that the School of Management should absolutely
stay out of politics, to me this is axiomatic in the academic
community. However, I do not agree that the SSCC request indicates
a political position. This is a volunteer activity that supports
a segment of our society that serves the nation. I venture to
think that veterans can be worthy of gratitude for their service
without regard to their particular assignments, just as I do not
consider the Vietnam memorial as a glorification of that war.
It is entirely possible that others may disagree with this view,
in which case they would opt not to respond to [SSCCs] call.
To my mind, suppressing an activity like this goes against the
spirit of free exchange of ideas that the academy should preserve.
It would also put the dean in the unwelcome position of favoring
one cause over another, which I would be loathe to do. I will
try to be vigilant that future volunteer efforts of this kind
maked [sic] the non-political nature of the effort more explicit."
At 5:30 a.m.
the next morning, having read the Deans reply, I responded at some
length as follows:
"I wish
I could agree with you 100%, but I cannot, for I find contradictions
in your thinking about this.
"1.
You say ...absolutely stay out of politics... That is my position
too, and I agree it's axiomatic.
"2.
Does the SSCC activity breach this axiom? Yes, indeed. How else
are we to understand what I was told? It says The UB School of
Management SSCC (Strengthen OurSense Of Community Committee) is
working with AmillionThanks.org to send thank-you notes to members
of our military(active, reserve and veterans). During the week
of February 7 to 11, there will be a table set up in the Alfiero
Center Atrium. Please stop down and write a brief note of appreciation
and gratitude to send to our men and women serving our country.
We have over 200 note cards to fill out, please spread the word!
"The
SSCC decided this was a worthwhile activity. It decided to partner
with a supportive group. It designated a time and place, within
the SOM, as a locus for the activity. It asked people and encouraged
them to participate. It took the political position that these
men and women are serving the country, when that is the very thing
that is non-neutral, for many believe they are not serving the
country but other interests and the State. They encouraged spreading
the word.
"They
advertised the organization AMillionThanks. Its activity is thoroughly
political. I quote [from their website]: A Million Thanks is
a year-round campaign to show our appreciation for our U.S. Military
Men and Women, past and present, for their sacrifices, dedication,
and service to our country through our letters, emails, cards,
and prayers. Who do you think commands them? The executive-in-chief.
To do what? Aren't wars political? Who pays for these wars? How?
Through taxes. Aren't those politically determined?
"What
do you think all of that activity is, if not political activity?
"I have
strongly to disagree with you.
"To
make my point, what if the SSCC had done the opposite? What if
it partnered with a peace group and encouraged a campaign to ask
Congress to stop funding these wars? What if it organized a campaign
of writing letters to soldiers asking them to STAND DOWN and not
obey immoral orders in immoral wars that kill civilians? What
if it organized protests against some egregious activities of
soldiers in these wars?
"Would
you tell me that this is not political?
"I shouldn't
have to spell this out for you. You are an intelligent man. I
think you have not thought through this clearly enough, and so
I have to make you understand that your position is superficial
and wrong in being inconsistent with the axiom that you propose
and that is correct.
"There
are those who are grateful to the military, but there are those
who are not. That is true. That implies that the SOM should not
take a position one way or another by the activities involved
in providing a locus and focus for one side and encouraging the
expression of one side.
"You
express a very naive attitude toward this, which is that support
of troops in this way doesn't support the activities that these
troops engage in, but it does. It is merely one step removed,
because these troops join and are paid to do these tasks. The
money is exacted by the government. The troops willingly become
part of a political process that has a military manifestation.
"I request
that you stop this activity as quickly as possible and certainly
do nothing like it in the future. If that prohibition needs to
be made explicit in the code of the SOM, that should be done."
At 8:46 a.m.,
the Dean replied:
"It
is clear that we disagree. I have nothing further to contribute
as I do not find it appropriate for a dean to engage in a discussion
of political leanings or preferences."
I then informed
the Provost, as I said I would. I left the President out of it since
he has resigned. I sent the Provost all the e-mails and added these
comments:
"It
seems to me that the SOM is engaging in political activity when
it should not. The Dean and I disagree on this.
"A committee
in the SOM is acting as a locus and focus to encourage a letter-writing
campaign to U.S. military personnel.
"My
ideas on this and the Dean's ideas are contained in the attached
exchange of e-mails.
"I'd
like to see the SOM cease this activity and return to a true state
of neutrality, which means saying and doing nothing one way or
another with respect to military personnel. Disengagement seems
to me to be neutral.
"Dean
Assad seems to think that using SOM facilities, committees, and
batch e-mails to promote letters to the military is neutral. I
do not. That takes a stance in favor of the military who have
joined the armed forces willingly and who willingly become instruments
of the political policies of U.S. administrations. Since these
by nature are political and meet with disagreement in the nation,
I do not see how the Dean's position can be maintained. I think
he is wrong and that the activity is wrong. I want to see it stopped."
On Wednesday,
I had a few further thoughts and passed them on to the Provost:
"Dear
Dr. Tripathi,
"As
you deliberate, consider another thing. In re-reading what Arjang
said in his reply, I realize that he has made an argument that
supports my contention. He wrote
"This
is a volunteer activity that supports a segment of our society
that serves the nation. I venture to think that veterans can be
worthy of gratitude for their service without regard to their
particular assignments, just as I do not consider the Vietnam
memorial as a glorification of that war. It is entirely possible
that others may disagree with this view, in which case they would
opt not to respond to [SSCCs] call.
"He
asserted his opinion that the activity supports our society
that serves the nation. But he admits that others may disagree
with this view. Yes, they may. That indicates that the activity
is not neutral.
"In
his view, what makes it neutral is that it is a volunteer activity
and that those who disagree with it can opt out. But is that
true? I think not. The fact that one is not required to participate
(participation is voluntary) doesn't make it neutral politically.
Imagine that this committee or some other one now comes along
and looks for letters to Congress that protest against the use
of the military in Iraq, or against some other current issue like
national health insurance, and suppose these letters are voluntary.
Does that make the activity neutral? It means that the SOM has
become a forum for political matters, that e-mails are being sent
in batches to everyone promoting positions, and that space is
being used, and time of employees being used for political positioning.
This, I say, is not neutral to politics.
"Arjang
goes on to say To my mind, suppressing an activity like this
goes against the spirit of free exchange of ideas that the academy
should preserve. It would also put the dean in the unwelcome position
of favoring one cause over another, which I would be loathe to
do. But since when is it the mission of the SOM to air political
conflicts and to promote support for one side or another? And,
more fundamentally, is letter-writing an aspect of any free exchange
of ideas? Does Arjang propose to use the SOM facilities to have
a debate on the role of the U.S. military? That would be more
in line with an academic mission. It might not be the SOM's bailiwick,
but it would be consistent with a university. But taking one side
of such a debate is not.
"Is
the Dean favoring one cause over another by promoting this activity?
I say he is. He says that if he disallowed this campaign, he'd
be suppressing the free exchange of ideas. I think that is nonsense.
There's no exchange going on in this. It's strictly one-sided.
There is no SOM committee or statement that I know of that has
opened up the SOM for political debates and begun to promote the
school as a locus for airing particular political postures. If
there were and if this activity were done properly in such a context,
it might lend it the credibility that Arjang seeks. Even then,
would this be a credible avenue for such activity? It doesn't
look that way. It would need a neutral committee to promote debates
and exchanges. This committee has not been formed in that way
or with that purpose by the appearance of its communications or
by what it has chosen to do."
"Cordially,
"Michael
This missive
resulted in silence. Days passed. On February 18, I sent an e-mail
to Provost Tripathi:
"Dear
Dr. Tripathi,
"It's
now 9-10 days since I communicated to you, in detail, my concerns
about political activity within the SOM.
"What
have you decided on this matter?
"Cordially,
"Michael
Rozeff (Professor Emeritus)"
Dr. Tripathi
answered the next day:
"Dear
Professor Rozeff,
"I apologize
for my belated response. I have given this matter thought. Indeed,
we are mindful that some may view the efforts of the Strengthen
our Sense of Community Committee as having a political message.
From my vantage point, I believe that this particular activity
is, on balance, probably more aptly deemed a community service
activity. This is a completely voluntary effort and faculty and
staff can chose [sic] to participate or chose [sic] not to participate.
I know that my perspective on this does not conform with your
perspective, but as academics I think we are use [sic] to people
approaching issues from different frames of reference. As I write,
I know that this is not the response you were seeking, but I do
hope that at least we can respect our differences of opinion at
least on this matter.
"Sincerely,
"SatishTripathi"
The entire
interchange ended with my final e-mail sent to Dr. Tripathi an hour
later:
"Dear
Dr. Tripathi,
"You
know, if you had been willing to give just a little, we could
find a solution. If you had simply said that in the future you'd
instruct the committee to be more mindful of the kind of concerns
expressed by me and to make a concerted effort to avoid any hint
of political involvement, that would have sufficed.
"You
didn't do that. Instead you told me what your belief is about
this particular activity. That means you were 100% nonresponsive
to me and my concerns. You gave them no weight. Only your judgment
mattered.
"Well,
I'm sorry, but I find that an unacceptable response on your part.
"Therefore,
I ask you to reconsider along the lines I've just mentioned. Does
it not seem reasonable that the committee be made to know from
you that it needs to be more mindful of crossing boundaries that
should not be crossed? Doesn't it need to know that cystic fibrosis
is not the same as supporting war? Doesn't it need to know that
community is not a catchall phrase that justifies support of
everything involving any community in America? After all, there
are good and bad communities.
"Sincerely,
"Michael
Rozeff"
I never got
an answer.
An interesting
thing happened on March 17. Tripathi was chosen to be UBs next
President.
I really did
not expect to change much immediately. At most I expected to plant
seeds of doubt, so that the next time something like this arises,
people will think twice about what they are doing. Raising doubts
is a step in awakening consciousness.
It is dismaying
that people who possess ordinary intelligence do not see that support
of the military is a political position, and that turning a blind
eye to such support in a business school is biased in favor of a
political position, which in this case is pro-militarism.
 I
was taken aback by this military support coming to roost in a business
school. This committee has all sorts of community efforts that it
can support and has supported, such as its effort on cystic fibrosis.
The fact that it chose to support the military could be, in my opinion,
a sign of people refusing to face unpleasant facts about what the
American military has been and is doing overseas. Hearing criticism,
many people whose being is associated with the nation-state respond
by asserting the value of the military and expressing support of
it. A person indoctrinated into a supine patriotism of flag-waving
and blind support of the state and its wars will naturally rally
to its defense against criticism, because their person has been
lost or diminished as a result of the indoctrination. They have
submerged themselves into the state. Freeing them from these beliefs
requires patience and continual exposure to ideas of freedom, peace,
and government to which they are unaccustomed. Plant seeds and wait
for their fruition. Dont expect instant conversions. It takes time
to shed old beliefs and take on new ones.
| 
