Campus speech under fire: Yale 'fails America'

WHEN SENWUNG LUK, SM '03, HEARD HE
made the list, he was shocked. When History Professor Paul Kennedy heard he made the list, he was furious. And when Strobe Talbott, SM '68, heard he made the list, he was indifferent.

HYORIM SUH/YH

The list on which these three members of the Yale community found their names was compiled by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA). It identifies 117 students and professors from around the country who have recently made "anti-American" statements. ACTA is a non-profit, educational organization "committed to academic freedom, excellence and accountability at America's colleges and universities," according to the group's mission statement.

The list is part of a larger report entitled, "Defending Civilization: How Our Universities are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It," released last week. Aside from publishing the 117 statements, the report urges those who support the war not to be intimidated, but to speak up. The report also stresses the importance of the study of Western civilizations and questions the relevance of studying Islamic history. Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, herself a founding member of ACTA, is quoted in the introduction to the report.

COURTESY OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Luk found out he had made the list after Democracy Now, a radio show, called him on Thurs., Nov. 15, requesting an interview. His "anti-American" statement came from an opinion piece that he had written for the Yale Herald in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, in which he stated, "Just because a grotesque act was committed against this country does not mean any response is justified; it does not grant this country special license to use the sword." ["U.S. must not continue the cycle of vengeance," YH, 9/14/01].

Also included in the ACTA list were such slogans as "Recycle plastic, not violence," which appeared on a poster at Hunter College, and statements like that of a math instructor at a CUNY teach-in, who declared that "American imperialism is responsible for this terrorist attack."

COURTESY AASIAN OPETUS

THE REPORT EMPHASIZES THAT ACTA IS IN NO WAY trying to limit free speech and is instead acting as a critic of academia. "Academic freedom does not mean freedom from criticism," it states. Yet its detractors do not believe the report is simply a form of constructive criticism.

"If you are told to write a political science paper criticizing someone you disagreed with and just listed what they said, that would not be good criticism," Luk said. "The only purpose this list can serve is to intimidate people into not saying the things they want to say."

While the report itself did not upset him, Talbott, a former deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration, said he "found it highly objectionable to impugn people's patriotism and to take quotes out of context to use them to establish some sort of unpatriotic sentiment." But, he added, "My own experiences with the Vietnam War keep me from acting more distressed."

KENNEDY, BY CONTRAST, WAS UPSET TO LEARN THAT the statements he made at a panel discussion held in Battell Chapel on Sun., Sept. 16 were taken as anti-American. He was cited by the list as saying, "What would it be like were our places in the world reversed? Suppose that there existed today a powerful, unified Arab-Muslim state that stretched from Algeria to Turkey and Arabia."

Defending his statement, Kennedy told the Herald, "I wanted students to try and understand why there were young people running out in the Gaza Strip cheering at the news of the attacks. Some people in this country simply hate the idea of being asked to see the U.S. as others see us. But that's their problem," he said. "I certainly didn't think my speech was anti-American and I didn't think the people who applauded after my speech were anti-American either. They were just worried about getting involved in a war. We're not in the business of justifying acts of terror, but explaining why those acts of terror got such a popular rejoicing—that is actually a fundamental obligation of the University."

Luk, who attended the Sept. 16 panel discussion, said, "Kennedy was simply evaluating the actions of America and Osama bin Laden according to his set of beliefs. This is something that not only professors, but every human being, should do."

The report states colleges across the country have sponsored "teach-ins that typically range from moral equivocation to explicit condemnations of America" and that some professors "even pointed accusatory fingers, not at terrorists, but at America itself." The report also asserts that many students are afraid to question their professors' "politically correct ideas."

In response, Kennedy said, "The Yale body has been really commendable and pretty balanced. What I see is actually an incredibly open and healthy debate going on around campus." The notion that students are being brainwashed by their liberal professors "sounds nutty," he said. "It seems to me that the people who wrote the report haven't been on a college campus in years." Talbott, who returned to Yale after graduating 30 years ago, was "impressed with the high degree of civility here at Yale. I have colleagues that I disagree with very strongly, but there has been no name-calling."

KENNEDY STRESSED THAT THE POST-SEPT. 11 ROLE of the academy is to "encourage and protect open discussion." He added, "We should encourage a variety of views, and if nonsense is said, we should be pretty quick to say it's nonsense. There were some people around who, during the first two weeks after the attacks, said some very stupid anti-American things. But I think we should not be scared of controversy or unpopular left-wing opinions."

Talbott offered a similar view. "The role of the academy is to encourage intellectual inquiry into the tough issues of our lives and provide a forum for healthy and mutually respectful disagreement," he said.

As for the influence this report could have on academia and free speech, Kennedy's only worry is that the debate will become oversimplified. "If this report is reprinted in the Arizona Gazette, for example, someone reading it might say, `I'm not going to let my daughter apply to Yale because it's full of all these left-wing weirdos.'"

If anything, according to Luk, this report "should make us all want to express ourselves more. I guess whatever is in my files is already in my files. So, if I have something to say, I'll say it."

In a New York Times article ["An Organization on the Lookout for Patriotic Incorrectness," NYT, 11/24/01] on the ACTA report, Hugh Gusterson, a professor at MIT who is on the list for a comment he made at a campus peace rally, accused the report of having a "whiff of McCarthyism."

Talbott thinks the report's allegations are silly. "I have had enough experience in the public arena to know that in the heat of the moment a lot of intemperate things are said. I tend not to take them personally—particularly when they come from people who neither know me or my view," he said. "I've heard a lot of charges, but you can't let them get to you unless you feel they are accurate or impeding your ability to do your job."

He added, "All this comes with the territory of a healthy democracy. If it gets out of hand it can be dangerous—but I don't see that happening in the context of the current debate."

Back to News...