The Garden

In a previous op-ed, I discussed my view that the topic of 9/11, including both questions about what actually happened on that day (e.g. why three World Trade Center Buildings completely collapsed when only two airliners were alleged to have struck) and the legitimacy of the U.S.’s retaliatory actions in response to 9/11 both foreign and domestic, deserves to be discussed widely and openly without hostility or ridicule toward those who dissent from the official story.  What I would like to add here is the question of what, if any, responsibility academic institutions have in devoting their time and resources into socio-politically important topics like that of 9/11 and its companion “War on Terror.”

An interesting event dealing with this idea arose recently whereby a graduate student at Boston University (BU), by the name of Christian Tutschka, wrote a letter to BU President Robert A. Brown on Mar. 31, 2008 titled “An Open Letter To The President of the Boston University Student Body.”  The letter, which can be read in full at www.sst911.org under “articles,” argues that a university is a “power center” of a society that, in virtue of this power, has a responsibility to serve its society by influencing and directing that society.   He goes on to state that there is enough reason to believe that the 9/11 Commission Report is flawed and, therefore, that a new investigation is warranted.  He claims that BU, as a societal “power center,” is obligated to recognize the flaws of the Commission Report and to advocate a new investigation.  In light of BU’s failure to support a new investigation and act on other related matters, Tutschka explains, he believes BU has “failed” as a university and that he will suspend his participation in his Master of Arts (MA) program in International Relations and Environmental Policy until BU meets his criteria for a “legitimate” university.  His criteria demands that professors from different BU departments answer questions pertaining to their field of expertise.  For example, he states that the physics and engineering professors ought to provide an explanation as to how the 47-story steel-framed building known as World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) completely collapsed in under seven seconds at 5:20 in the afternoon on 9/11 without suffering from a plane impact, and that the law professors ought to explain why President Bush has not been impeached for many of his actions in office—including the illegal invasion and occupation of two sovereign nations.

Now, while I do sympathize and agree with many of Tutschka’s points in his letter, I do not completely agree with the wording and content of the letter.  Having said that, I would nevertheless like to use Tutschka’s letter as an illustration of an interesting concept about the role of a university in modern society.

The idea that a university is a “power center” is a good one in that universities are comprised of some of the best and brightest individuals a society has to offer—both students and faculty alike—and that these individuals are highly respected and recognized by society at large.  In virtue of this status, university personnel should be expected to provide guidance and insight into matters of socio-political importance—which, in fact, they often do—however, there nevertheless remain issues that seem to be too controversial or politically incorrect for university institutions to address fully and openly.  I happen to believe, as Tutschka does, that major universities have been noticeably absent on the issues of 9/11 and the subsequent “War on Terror” for example.  This is not to say that the faculty of this University in particular, or any other university in general, are necessarily avoiding these issues or that they don’t care about them, but that the “climate” of the university setting as a whole appears to be unnaturally detached from attending to these issues.

My position is to side with Tutschka in that universities, as societal “power centers,” ought to be dealing with these sorts of issues more directly than they have been.  When you seriously think about both 9/11 and the “War on Terror,” the impact these events have, and are having, on millions of people is staggering.  Many readily agree that our government officials are saturated with special interests and that our mass media is mostly a conglomerate of centralized corporate entities, so it seems bizarre for us to rely on those “power centers” to do justice to the debates over major issues.  University communities have the potential to introduce intelligent, well-reasoned discourse into the public sphere that is less susceptible to special interest biases and systematic manipulation.  It is therefore incumbent upon them to exercise their authority over these matters, not only to their students, but also to societies at large so that knowledge and good ideas can spread far enough to actually make a difference in the way we live.  Frankly speaking, many of the tragedies and hardships occurring domestically and around the world should not be happening.  Plain and simple.  And, speaking from my experience with the University of Wisconsin-System from 2001 to 2008, on both UW-Madison’s and UW-Parkside’s campuses, I have to say that the levels of interest and activity on both fronts, with notable exceptions, have been lacking.  I think many involved in these universities are merely interested in building resumes and careers for personal reasons irrespective of concerns for the well-being of society and the rest of the world.  That is most unfortunate.  Whether or not you agree with Mr. Tutschka’s argument, you have to admire the fact that he was bold enough to sacrifice his graduate degree for a cause that he felt vital.  I believe few in academia would be so bold.  I therefore encourage all members of university communities to consider what they believe the role of a university is in a society, and whether or not they believe their university is fulfilling that role.

If Western society is known for anything, it is known for its impatience. Westerners are accustomed to obtaining instant results in virtually all areas of their lives. We buy microwave dinners and eat at fast-food restaurants regularly—not because we think the “food” tastes good or think that it is good for us (we all know it tastes like crap and makes our bodies feel the same), but because it is an instant remedy to the “problem” of hunger—and we even use drive-thru windows because it’s too much of a hassle to get out of the damn car. We prefer surgeries and medications to balanced diets and regular exercise because, frankly, why do things the long way when surgeons and pills can do the job instantly? We even charge our credit cards to oblivion because we think it is so much more important that we have the stupid thing now rather than wait until we, god forbid, actually have the money to pay for the stupid whatever-it-is up front.

Yes, we Westerners are impatient indeed. It is no wonder, then, that we tend to approach our social problems in much the same way. When something seems to be going wrong, we figure we can simply throw more money at it to make it better, cast more laws “out there” to hopefully “catch” the problem like a fish in a net, or, in some cases, we just create a new department of such and such and tell them it’s their job to fix the such and such, as if that ever does anything.

Westerners are so impatient, in fact, that they don’t even take the time to notice if their quick-fix solutions are even working. How much less prevalent are health problems and poverty issues now that we’ve had decades of social programs? How many airline terrorists had a change of heart now that laws prevent everyone (including non-terrorists believe it or not) from bringing full-size tubes of toothpaste onto an airplane? How much more secure is the “homeland” now that there is a Dept. of Homeland Security? If there have been any changes for the better at all in these areas, they have been negligible at best. Yet, we Westerners refuse to abandon our quick-fix methodology. If these strategies have performed poorly thus far, then the fault must be one of degree, not of kind. In other words, the methodology is sound; it’s just not strong enough. The poor performance can simply be remedied, like everything else, by an increase in volume, a hotter temperature, or a higher dose. That way, no one has to change their lifestyle, their beliefs or their thinking—it all stays the same and its all familiar. It also, unfortunately, just doesn’t work.

Just like the other aspects of Western living, quick-fix solutions to social problems always provide the feeling that “this time it’ll be different, this time it just might work,” but, in the long run, always prove to be shortsighted. “Maybe this time my bacon double whopper will make me feel energized” we say, “Maybe this time our military can spread democracy and peace with force and violence” we tell ourselves, or “Maybe this time the well-dressed candidate who says he ‘cares’ will make everyone’s life better.” Time and time again, we look for simple, one-step solutions to complicated problems.

I don’t think we’ll ever make any progress socially until more people decide to quit looking for simple solutions for the answers to society’s problems. The one thing Westerners avoid like the plague is taking personal responsibility for the ills of society. Many will say that someone should do something about poverty, but few actually nominate themselves to take action. Sure, they’ll vote for a guy who says that he’ll do the work for them, but that’s as far as it goes. Many will say that we should support local businesses and avoid third-world products, but nevertheless continue to shop at Wal-Mart because it’s cheaper and easier. Many will acknowledge that crime rates are way higher than they ought to be in Western society, but few decide to jettison the old belief that criminals are simply criminals by nature in favor of the more realistic view that our society (the one we all help to create) is contributing to the problem of crime. Sure, it’s a lot easier to just round up the “bad guys” and put them behind bars than it is to fully understand why they behave the way they do, but why continue to do it if it isn’t solving anything?

In my view, the impatience of our society is one of the biggest impediments to the resolution of social problems. In order for us to make any real progress socially, we have to deal with our impatience and take it personally. The first step is to recognize that it is there, and to recognize how pervasive it is. If we don’t, we’ll continue to see the same mediocre results of old. If we do, nothing any new politician, department or law could do would be more powerful.