U of C Madness
The entire incident concerning J.C. and B.F. on campus should not have been as shocking to me as it was, yet continues to nag at me from the back of my brain. If you don't know what has been going on with this balagan (big mess, for you non-Hebrew speakers out there), check out the link below, courtesy of Ian:
http://www.jbelleisle.com
The synopsis of the situation is provided there, so I won't bother to rehash or recount the details. As I see it, two questions are raised by this issue:
1. Why did the University not allow them to protest in a proper, civilized fashion?
2. When is it appropriate (if ever) to invoke symbols like swastikas in the name of free speech and/or freedom of expression?
In my humble opinion (which you deigned to read by finding me in the blog-o-sphere), J.C. et al should have been allowed to protest the presence of the US Military or Marine recruiters on campus. Let's be honest--no one ever likes being screamed at in a hostile way in the Reynold's Club (or at all in general). I always find myself wanting to punch people who harass and scream at me on my way to class in the face because, really, I'm stressed enough on a regular basis. However, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinions. If J.C. et al wanted to protest and attempted to request a table in RC like everyone else on this campus, they had every right to do so. Why the University did not allow them to do so is another question to which students deserve an answer.
The manner in which they protested is another matter altogether. Deliberate and continued harassment for its own sake is not acceptable. I do not think that it was appropriate to invoke the symbol of the swastika and play act like Nazis in the RC (especially not directly across from the Hillel/Jewish Student Association table). Perhaps it's because of my own background as a Jew with inherent sensitivity towards the Holocaust. The swastika is a symbol that has a very specific connotation: suffering, hatred, racism and murder. I think it's clear that the invocation of a symbol like the swastika has one purpose: to piss people off. Here at the University of Chicago, people know their history. People know what the swastika means, and know the events of the twentieth century committed by Adolf Hitler. The excuse of ignorance is not viable here.
Moreover, the posters and protest done by J.C. and B.F. are especially significant for one particular reason: they are Jews. Invocation of the Holocaust by Jews for purposes of comparison demeans the entire historical event. Comparing the discussion of a Marine Corps officer with potential recruits to the genocide of the Holocaust doesn't equate in my mind. It's hyperbole in the extreme, and demeans the deaths of all who suffered under the Nazis. Acting out the role of a Nazi soldier and holding up signs with swastikas does not effectively criticize the University for allowing military recruitment on campus OR effectively critique the policies of the Bush administration. While I am not a supporter of many Bush administration policies, I do not think that the president is a fascist. While the occasional joke about it may be somewhat amusing, George W. Bush has not plotted the systematic execution of people based on warped eugenic policies. He has not established concentration camps. He has done and implemented a great many things that deserve close scrutiny, criticism, and analysis...but he has not committed atrocities anywhere near the scale of what occurred during World War II. We are a nation currently at war in a country for purposes which many people do not endorse. Protest and criticism of the war in Iraq (and other policies of the administration) is welcome, encouraged and expected in healthy political discourse. Even with all of our current problems, I have great faith and pride in American ideals of civil rights, civil liberties, and all of that good stuff (yeah yeah, go ahead and make fun of my mushy patriotism...).
Conclusively, I don't think it's generally effective strategically in politics to do something for the sheer purpose of being inflammatory. In politics (in a modern context), to win people over to one's side, he/she needs to play towards the center and convince others that his/her ideas are not especially radical. Obviously there are numerous historic examples of dramatic demonstrations and symbolic invocation which prove me wrong (burning the flag, burning bras, I could go on forever). However, this is a college campus where these methods only illicit the following: scorn, disrepute, and consequences of the administration. The behavior of J.C. and B.F. was, in my opinion, absurdly over the top and (borderline) unforgivable. The purpose of their protest did not create a need for the invocation of swastikas or acting like Nazis. If these tactics were truly necessary to garner the attention of students and faculty, perhaps their message was not meant to be heard at all.
http://www.jbelleisle.com
The synopsis of the situation is provided there, so I won't bother to rehash or recount the details. As I see it, two questions are raised by this issue:
1. Why did the University not allow them to protest in a proper, civilized fashion?
2. When is it appropriate (if ever) to invoke symbols like swastikas in the name of free speech and/or freedom of expression?
In my humble opinion (which you deigned to read by finding me in the blog-o-sphere), J.C. et al should have been allowed to protest the presence of the US Military or Marine recruiters on campus. Let's be honest--no one ever likes being screamed at in a hostile way in the Reynold's Club (or at all in general). I always find myself wanting to punch people who harass and scream at me on my way to class in the face because, really, I'm stressed enough on a regular basis. However, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinions. If J.C. et al wanted to protest and attempted to request a table in RC like everyone else on this campus, they had every right to do so. Why the University did not allow them to do so is another question to which students deserve an answer.
The manner in which they protested is another matter altogether. Deliberate and continued harassment for its own sake is not acceptable. I do not think that it was appropriate to invoke the symbol of the swastika and play act like Nazis in the RC (especially not directly across from the Hillel/Jewish Student Association table). Perhaps it's because of my own background as a Jew with inherent sensitivity towards the Holocaust. The swastika is a symbol that has a very specific connotation: suffering, hatred, racism and murder. I think it's clear that the invocation of a symbol like the swastika has one purpose: to piss people off. Here at the University of Chicago, people know their history. People know what the swastika means, and know the events of the twentieth century committed by Adolf Hitler. The excuse of ignorance is not viable here.
Moreover, the posters and protest done by J.C. and B.F. are especially significant for one particular reason: they are Jews. Invocation of the Holocaust by Jews for purposes of comparison demeans the entire historical event. Comparing the discussion of a Marine Corps officer with potential recruits to the genocide of the Holocaust doesn't equate in my mind. It's hyperbole in the extreme, and demeans the deaths of all who suffered under the Nazis. Acting out the role of a Nazi soldier and holding up signs with swastikas does not effectively criticize the University for allowing military recruitment on campus OR effectively critique the policies of the Bush administration. While I am not a supporter of many Bush administration policies, I do not think that the president is a fascist. While the occasional joke about it may be somewhat amusing, George W. Bush has not plotted the systematic execution of people based on warped eugenic policies. He has not established concentration camps. He has done and implemented a great many things that deserve close scrutiny, criticism, and analysis...but he has not committed atrocities anywhere near the scale of what occurred during World War II. We are a nation currently at war in a country for purposes which many people do not endorse. Protest and criticism of the war in Iraq (and other policies of the administration) is welcome, encouraged and expected in healthy political discourse. Even with all of our current problems, I have great faith and pride in American ideals of civil rights, civil liberties, and all of that good stuff (yeah yeah, go ahead and make fun of my mushy patriotism...).
Conclusively, I don't think it's generally effective strategically in politics to do something for the sheer purpose of being inflammatory. In politics (in a modern context), to win people over to one's side, he/she needs to play towards the center and convince others that his/her ideas are not especially radical. Obviously there are numerous historic examples of dramatic demonstrations and symbolic invocation which prove me wrong (burning the flag, burning bras, I could go on forever). However, this is a college campus where these methods only illicit the following: scorn, disrepute, and consequences of the administration. The behavior of J.C. and B.F. was, in my opinion, absurdly over the top and (borderline) unforgivable. The purpose of their protest did not create a need for the invocation of swastikas or acting like Nazis. If these tactics were truly necessary to garner the attention of students and faculty, perhaps their message was not meant to be heard at all.
posted by *Jo* @ 5:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home