Notes from a Mad English Professor:

On Being a "Failure"

12/07/01

Ray Rice

I suppose that being labeled a "failure" by Lynne V. Cheney is in one sense the very highest of praises. If she believes that the American academe is "failing" to respond with the requisite amount of "anger, patriotism, and support of military intervention," then more power to the courage of our institutions of higher education and their individuals, both right and left.

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a reactionary "watchdog" group of American colleges and universities, released a polemic just after Thanksgiving entitled "Defending Civilization: How Our Universities are Failing America and What can be Done About It." Empowered by the sudden rise in fortune of its most influential member—Lynne V. Cheney (funny how no one complains these days about the influence Republican wives might wield over their office-holding husbands)—the "report" is a vicious wolf in sheep’s clothing, claiming that a "proper" knowledge of history, of the "ideas and ideals on which our nation has been built," is essential to the "next generation" of America’s youth.

Arguments as to what constitutes the "ideas and ideals" of "our" nation aside for the moment, the pamphlet is actually a rehashing of Cheney’s tiresomely elitist views, shamelessly wrapped in the flag of "true" patriotism (mandating a "correct" definition of patriotism is, to me, as dangerous as mandating "true" definitions of masculinity and femininity have proven to be—but that, too, is another argument). Claiming to call for "strong core curricula that include rigorous, broad-based courses on the great works of Western civilization as well as courses on American history" that do not mandate a "particular ideology," the authors actually propone the opposite: a blatantly hegemonic, lock-step ideological presentation of the dominant views of white, Western, patriarchal history.

As "proof" of the "one-sided" and "conformist" ideas of today’s college educators, the authors subsequently offer up over 100 taken-out-of-their-original-context quotations. But how Noam Chomsky’s claim that "the only way we can put an end to terrorism is to stop participating in it" is deleterious to the thought processes of the "next generation" is anybody’s guess. In my eyes, such a condemnation simply illustrates the dangerously fascist mentality of individuals like Cheney.

Until pretty recently, most of my ethical decisions were answered by a very basic question: "Can I live comfortably with myself with my given choice?" Thus, arguing against the dangerously narrow-minded mentality of rhetoricians like Cheney was a particularly easy decision: simply put, they stand opposed to almost every principle the major human rights movements of the twentieth century embrace. They define patriotism and democracy as privileges determined by the powerful rather than as rights beholden to all human beings. Mandating that history be taught a certain way—as Western history, privileging the ideas and ideals of the powerful few against the oppressed majority—is another variety of the poison fruit that Attorney General John Ashcroft and President G. W. Bush offer through their "military tribunal" justice. History must be the people’s history, not that of the "winners" or the power elite. Democracy must be a right owned by us all, not just by "Americans." In fact, those who would challenge our culture and beliefs are the ones whom we must most protect from "special treatment." A terrorist from Oklahoma and one from Afghanistan must be treated precisely the same if we hope to maintain a democratic ethos. Democracy must not only be practiced by all, but equally practiced upon all.

Thus, we must view John Ashcroft’s proclamation that America "is the role model for justice the world over" as a challenge to our sometimes flagging vigilance. We must be doubly vigilant that our conception of justice remains inextricably intertwined with our conception of universal democracy. One simply cannot exist without the other. Anything short condemns us to a tragically long list of "civilized" hypocrites.

In turn, when Jesse Jackson says to the students of Harvard Law School: "We should build bridges and relationships, not simply bombs and walls" (another sentiment defined by Cheney’s supporters as dangerous), he demonstrates academe’s most vital component: the will not to tell only the story of the powerful, the aggressive, the confrontational, and the competitive (I’m trying hard to avoid the terms "capitalist" and "consumerist," but it’s pretty darned tough!)—to tell, too, the story of the disempowered, the oppressed, the silenced, and the forgotten. Only when we fully understand what it means to be privileged (and the "official" history of American is almost always the history of the privileged) can we begin to understand what it means to be disenfranchised. And only then can we build the foundation of a true democracy. If our colleges and universities lose that understanding, they lose the very heart of their being.

As I noted earlier, until recently I maintained my ethics by asking simply what I needed to do to best live with myself. But as the father of a three-year old, I must now ask how I want my son Zachary to feel about how I live my life—two years, twelve years, or twenty years from now. And if that means he thinks of me as someone willing to defend the right of a student to print "Recycle plastic, not violence" on a placard outside New York University (yep, identified as yet one more "bad" response by Cheney’s watchdogs), then I’ll sleep pretty damn soundly at night.

©University of Maine at Presque Isle   AA/EEO
181 Main Street, Presque Isle, Maine, 04769-2888 USA
Phone: (207) 768-9400, http://www.umpi.maine.edu
Updated: 7/8/00 by Ray Rice. E-mail:Webmaster