When viewpoints clash
(Page 3 of 3)
Nowhere has this aspect of the debate been more clear than at Yale University, in the wake of a forum that seemed one-sided to some.
"Suppose that there existed today a powerful, unified Arab-Muslim state that stretched from Algeria to Turkey and Arabia," said Paul Kennedy, one of six panelists and a professor of history at Yale.
He continued, describing a world in which America was split into small factions, and a Muslim state had the biggest economy and most powerful military in the world, the Yale Daily news reported. Also, that imaginary state spreads offensive cultural messages about women and sexuality. "In those conditions, would not many Americans grow to loathe that colossus?" Dr. Kennedy wondered. "I think so."
After the forum, some criticized the panel for lacking a diversity in viewpoints, saying there was little or no counterpoint view suggesting that the US had a right to respond forcefully.
"Here is a classic example of blaming the victim," Donald Kagan, a Yale history professor, wrote in a guest column in the school paper: "Surely it is wise to try to understand why people do terrible things. But to understand should not be the same as to justify their actions by blaming whatever it was that produced the anger, resentment, and hatred that led to these terrible murders and destruction."
The Yale event raised the specter of renewed "culture wars" on campus as liberals and conservatives vie to promote their views about the causes of and solutions to the Sept. 11 attack.
Catherine Labio, an Belgian-born assistant professor of comparative literature and French at Yale, saw the discussion through a different lens.
"I don't know to what extent what was said is typical of academics in general or Yale academics in particular," she wrote in an e-mail interview. The intellectual message seemed to lay blame at the feet of US foreign policy, a view she is not convinced the larger academic community shares.
As a European, she explains, she has seen much anti-Americanism and has thought a lot about its roots. Dr. Labio does not personally believe the attack had its roots in policies or culture, but rather in an antagonism to what America "has done right."
"I can't help but wonder sometimes whether our willingness to expose our own flaws has not blinded some academics to the strengths of a system that allows them to engage in critical inquiry," she writes.
At St. Olaf College, some faculty on the Northfield, Minn., campus began the day of the attacks to evaluate the government's ability to deal with the crisis.
For some students, the instant, cold analysis and open criticism was not welcome. Two asked the dean if professors could show more concern for their fears by offering fewer "negative comments regarding the leadership abilities of the American government in solving the crisis at hand."
"Students spent the morning watching planes hitting buildings and blowing up," says Greg Kneser, the dean. "They weren't prepared for this political analysis critical of the US government. When your house is on fire, you don't want individuals standing there saying how stupid the firefighters are."
The faculty has since debated whether there is a line on criticism involving personal views and criticism of US policy that should not be crossed, especially in crisis. There was no consensus.
Staff writers Marjorie Coeyman and Mary Wiltenburg contributed to this article.
