From Classroom to Hostile situation...

Something happened in class on Thursday that I have never experienced—an ethnic conflict of vast proportions was brought to real life for me. I take a class about politics in the Middle East and we were covering an especially sensitive topic: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A freshman in the class raised his hand and asked (I paraphrase throughout the narrative) “If Palestine isn’t even a real country, why are they so nationalistic?” At the time he asked the question, I felt bad for him. He had certainly never covered this all-too-current conflict and was perhaps a bit naive about the events and political situation in the Middle East. Some of the other students in the class began laughing at his stupidity (I write this with obvious opinion-orientated language), but, sadly, one of the Palestinian students in the class was not so happy about the way he phrased his question or the tone of it.

He mouthed off at the other student saying “You have no right to ask that f---ing question. F--- you.” Then the other student responded with more foul language and it became a situation in which the teacher was screaming at them to both “stop-it” and “calm down!” Other students got involved, not taking sides, with “you guys, stop!” These altercations went on for what seemed like a very long 20 seconds. Many of the other students in the class, including myself, looked down at their feet. What right do I have to bud in or say one party was right or wrong? I did feel incredibly bad for the teacher.

Before I continue this narrative, I actually have another of the same theme. Sophomore year I took a class about communication and culture and we had a set of speakers talking about immigration and how both immigrants and the United States use very specific communication mediums. A female student, probably of the upper middle-class conservative upbringing, said so thoughtfully, “I think the only reason that illegal immigrants don’t get citizenship is because they don’t want to pay taxes.” Well, even the Latino guest, a professor in Annenberg, was blatantly offended by her comment, not to mention many of the Latinos in the class. To be honest, I was even tempted to contribute to the ensued ruckus because I am from San Diego (20 minutes from Tijuana), and I sympathize with many of the illegal immigrants in my own neighborhood. She deserved her freedom of speech, but so did all the other students that began verbally attacking her, some personally attacking her—I definitely heard “Where did you grow up, Newport?”

So I state that everyone is entitled to free speech, especially in America. But while I was abroad, it was often very difficult to stick to my conviction in a class where we had a discussion about 9/11. It was a class with many international students—England, USA, the Netherlands, Canada, Germany, Australia and Poland were all represented. Well the teacher, who is of German descent, points the class discussion along the lines of comparing Osama Bin Laden to George Bush. Immediately the Americans in the class—there were six of us—were alienated from the conversation. An Australian student who had earlier made her opinions about not only America but every single American citizen very clear, stated (and this is actually a direct quote), “Well, I’m sorry to say, but you guys deserved it.” She said this grotesque statement and looked at the six of us. One of the Americans in the class was from New York and knew many people who died in the 9/11 attack. He began to get teary-eyed as he attempted to defend centuries of poor policy decisions made by the American government. What could we say?

However, a clear line needs to be drawn here. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the young man from my Middle East class who asked the question was not directly stating an opinion. At the time he asked the question, I believe, however naive, that he was just trying to learn. He may be from an upbringing where the do not talk about world politics at the dinner table. I consider myself so naïve about many international situations. (What is going on in Venezuela?) I want to ask the Palestinian supporter whether or not he is from the Middle East because he does have a slight accent, but I am terrified of getting a hostile response. The anger he showed in class crushed any opportunity for many of the students to learn or to explore a controversial topic. Although thrilling for a Thursday late-afternoon class, I was sad the violent altercation happened. How great would it have been to here the Palestinian student’s response to the question? I for one would have been glued to every word, which disappoints me. There is so much violence, ethnic and international tension that even at a place of higher learning, opportunities to be educated become diluted.

Update: This weekend I encountered someone from my Middle East class who told me that the freshman who asked the question was a very outspoken Israeli supporter and activist. He supposedly meant the question to be hostile and serve as an attack of Palestinian interest. I can’t confirm this or decide if it changes my opinion.

Obama's Bad Week

Being the President of the United States of America is undoubtedly very hard work. No one can deny that. However, in my opinion, Obama had an especially rough week. The past seven days have proved to be exponentially difficult for the President. Last Saturday, September 12th was the 9/12 march on Washington. The 9/12 people, also known as the Tea Party, are a group of ultra-conservative right-wingers who oppose many of the President’s policies. Their website and correspondence has become an outlet for people who agree with the organization to network and organize. They consider themselves a type of grassroots organization. While the turnout was a lot less than the org expected, it was still a sufficient amount to cause the White House a bit of a head ache. But that’s not even the worst part. The worst part of the whole day for Obama, the most personal attack, were the many creative signs that people came with. Not only were they creative, but racist and by my standards, completely ludicrous. They decided to march against Obama's mission, as covered in this LA Times article. While the signs were a moving demonstration of 1st Amendment rights, what the hell?

Of course, there is also the Joe "You Lie" Wilson story. During Obama's speech to both houses of Congress about health care reform, a boisterous senator from South Carolina decided to speak up in a disastrous manner. Wilson screamed "you lie!" at the top of his lungs as Obama claimed that his health care reform would not provide illegal immigrants with free health care. As this LA Times article confirms, the House voted on Tuesday for an official admonition of the South Carolina Senator. While I am thrilled that the out-of-line senator was officially reprimanded for his idiotic behaviors, the intense media coverage and uncalled-for voting in Congress has turned Joe into a sort-of right winged hero. Was it absolutely necessary to pass an official document saying that what he did was wrong. Personally, I thought that was a waste of time and a bit ridiculous. I recently watched a video of English Parliament, in which there are about 100 Joe Wilson's screaming at the Prime Minister and opposition leader. All I have to say is that if our Congress was like that, C-Span would have higher ratings.

And finally, Obama is attempting a "full Ginsberg" in attempt to convince the American public that his plan for USA's health care reform will work. Obama will appear on five Sunday morning talk shows. This article from Yahoo News says that: "Starting at 3:30 p.m. Friday, the hosts began rotating in and out of the room with Obama in this order: CBS, NBC, ABC, Univision, CNN." That is quite a load for one man to pull off. Named after Monica Lewinsky's lawyer William Ginsberg, who first attempted the media blitz in his client's defense. However, he was fired later for incompetence. That is what makes this such a risky move--the risk of over exposure, which many argue Obama has achieved already. With health care reform seeming to hit a glass ceiling, a mob of quasi-racist Glenn Beck worshippers at his back and Republican senators screaming at him, Obama truly has had a rough week.

The Modern Role of the Public Intellectual

What is a public intellectual? What are the qualifications of that title? Looking to popular belief among academia, it seems as though the public intellectual is some exclusive club in which entry is only gained through years of higher study, a willingness to criticize and the ability to do that in the public sphere. A public intellectual in his own right, Steve Mack’s essay discusses critically the decline of this title as well as an attempt at a crisper definition:

“And if intellectuals are in a better position to perform that function it’s not because they are uniquely blessed with wisdom—and it’s certainly not because they are uniquely equipped to wield social or political power. It is only because learning the processes of criticism and practicing them with some regularity are requisites for intellectual employment. It’s what we do at our day jobs.”

To further expand on our conception of this definition, I examine the body of philosophical work of bioethicist Peter Singer, my personal favorite public figure who holds our elusive title. He is number 33 on Foreign Policy and Britain’s Prospect magazine’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals. His Wikipedia page states: “He is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE, University of Melbourne. He specializes in applied ehtics, approaching ethical issues from a secular preference utilitarian perspective.”

I was first introduced to the ideals and ethics of Dr. Singer when I was studying abroad in the Netherlands last semester. I wrote a paper for a social policy class about the Groningen Protocol, a type of official document in Holland that allows for the euthanasia of new born infants if they meet curtain criteria of illness or disability. The ideas behind this official document are both interesting and extremely controversial, especially in the United States, of course. Peter Singer, known for his ethics that push the American publics’ moral foundations to the brink, wrote an opinion piece in the LA Times about why and how he agrees with what the doctors are doing in Groningen.

In a documentary made about the Princeton professor called “Singer: A Dangerous Mind”, he is called “the most influential and controversial philosopher of our time.” Yet many protest his ideas outside of the pearly gates of Princeton. Here, his controversial mantras and publications forced citizens to become civically engaged through their afternoon art projects—decorative signs protesting Singer and his, what some consider morally-lacking, works. This is a very interesting dynamic of the public intellectual: someone whose ideas are a little bit too unique for the American masses to willingly accept that they force a discussion about the ideals of that intellectual.

So what is a public intellectual…someone who spoon feeds us intellectual material or someone who challenges us? Us, as in the American public or just the people who care enough to read? Peter Singer challenges the public, he challenges the moral fiber of American society…yet he is still successful, still intellectual—a public intellectual.

For more information about Singer and to read some of his essays, visit the Project Syndicate.

I agree with Gibbs on this one...

The New York Times reports that Obama's speech at Wakefield High School "became a lightning rod for conservative parents who accused the White House of trying to indoctrinate their children with a political message." I respond to these parents by respectfully saying you are wrong. The White House attempts to defend its leaders message.

“We’ve reached a little bit of the silly season when the president of the United States can’t tell kids to study hard and stay in school,” said Robert Gibbs the White House press secretary, in a Times article. Asked about those who call the speech political indoctrination, he said, “Boy, if staying in school is a political message, somebody should tell the N.B.A.”

I must agree with Gibbs on this one. It seems as though our lovely right wing constituents took Obama's school speech as an opportunity to find yet another reason to complain about the president. I think it is an unwarranted concern of the American parent. It should be considered an honor to hear the President of the United States speak at your high school. Obama not only published his speech early so that it could meet the approval of school administrators, but the speech had no political agenda attached to it. I believe these disgruntled parents saw this speech as an opportunity to protest Obama's policies in other sectors of politics. Leave the high school speech alone; it was a great speech encouraging people to stay in school and work hard. Maybe these parents should have taken Obama's advice; they should have stayed in school.