Letters to the Editor Responses to Aricles in the November Issue Winter 2004

RE: POLITICS AND THE PROFESSOR

Monday, 6 December

Dear Editor,
          I recently read your web page and was horrified of its contents about the liberal bullying of students by leftist teachers. Threats to conservative students about bad grades and other reprisals have no place in this famous institution. Free speech goes both ways. This country is the best on earth, and I just do not understand the negativity about our country and big business. If it was not for the fruits of big business, there would be no wonderful buildings and other sheltered facilities in which these shills for the Democratic party enjoy.
           Keep up the good work. Yale is to educate, not indoctrinate.

Best wishes,
Dick Auchincloss

The author is an alumnus of the Class of 1964, retired after 35 years in the insurance business. He lives in St. Davids, PA and may be reached at rsauchincloss@aol.com.

Thursday, 23 December

Dear Editor,
           I am writing to express my amazement at your feature on politics in the classroom. I am amazed that professors at an elite institution like Yale would make insulting jokes or offer rude comments about political beliefs, or any matter of personal opinion, especially when they clearly lie outside the scope of the class. Such behavior is clearly neither professional nor ‘liberal,’ in any sense of that word.
           I am equally amazed about how intimidated most students who responded to your survey appeared to be in the face of such antics. Surely, professors are owed respect, regardless of our opinions of them, but respect does not translate into silent submission. Have Yale students become so beholden to their futures that they shrink from speaking for themselves out of fear for their grades? What has become of the virtue of moral courage?
           I am further amazed, however, that those who criticize academia for being too far removed from everyday life are just as likely to attack it for engaging too much in (very practical) matters of politics. Yes, professors should not be sources of political antagonism. But they should provide students with a forum in which they can explore their own beliefs and those of others within a reasoned and informed framework. To remove political (or any) opinions from education is to condemn future generations to dogmatism and narrowmindedness. The trick is to incorporate them in a manner that is neither aggressive nor insular.

Sincerely,
Blaise Misztal
(blaise.misztal@yale.edu)

The author is a third-year Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Political Science.

Students for Academic Freedom respond:

Monday, 3 January

          There were a wide range of responses to our survey. The responses at the top of our list—the most severe cases of discrimination—have prompted many readers to write in expressing their astonishment.
           Our brief conversations with the respondents yielded many explanations. Many said, “It’s par for the course” or “I’ve gotten used to it.” Perhaps they fear that reporting their complaints would introduce too much rancor into their relationships with professors, or that it would not be likely to provoke any tangible, lasting changes. Also, many other schools have student-run grievance committees which advocate in such cases to professors or TAs, but no such committees exist at Yale. This may also be part of the problem, since it often becomes a student’s word against a professor’s.
           Professors should certainly feel welcome to express their opinion—indeed, many students choose their classes specifically for the opportunity to hear a foremost expert in a field give a thoughtful opinion on current events. To ban professors’ opinions on religion or politics from classroom discourse would be to stifle their voices and to deprive students of an opportunity for productive discussion.
           Yet when a professor transforms a personal opinion into a means for discrimination or an ideological litmus test, this crosses the bounds of normal classroom discourse. No student should ever have to accept such treatment as “par for the course.”

RE: PETERING OUT

Wednesday, 29 December

          Dear Editor,
          Your editorial “Petering Out: The Court Delivers a Partial Death for Abortion” presents the case against abortion in a very emotionally charged way while it fails to represent the other side of the coin, namely how miserable the life of an unwanted child can be or usually is. Moreover, it does not adequately address the instances where the life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy. What should one do in such a situation? Finally, choosing to comment on this trial over other trials might bias our perspective. It is important that in this case both the child bearer and the child lose their lives (obviously against their will); while in other cases of abortion the child bearer chooses to stop her pregnancy. But all of the above are typical responses that any pro-abortion person could provide. What I want to suggest is a bit different.
          Be the U.S. ethical debate what it is, it is also important to remember that, like all action embedded in culturally and historically-specific fields of power, abortion acquires meaning within a particular social context. For example, as Alexandra Halkias argues in The Empty Cradle of Democracy: Sex, Abortion, and Nationalism in Modern Greece, both sexuality and abortion seem to be privileged terrain for the playing out of disparate nationalist anxieties. Halkias uses the case of contemporary Greece to show that much as desire itself is shaped by particular stories of what is meant by being Greek so too the high rate of abortion displays a tension between Greek notions of what it means to be properly modern and European, on the one hand, and traditional narratives of Greekness that hold being passionate, spontaneous and brave as key! In this nexus, the aborting gendered subject that is often figured as a traitor in public discourse actually emerges as fully compliant with an alternative nationalist mandate. It might thus be worth considering the ways in which not only, perhaps, the “American” subject of this article but also, certainly, the particular register of ethics animating the article are similarly infected by nationalist concerns.

Sincerely,
Harris G. Mylonas
(charalampos.mylonas@yale.edu)

The author is a third-year Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science.

Diana Feygin responds:

Monday, 3 January

           About half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, so to say that every ‘unwanted’ child has a miserable life seems exaggerated. Moreover, many parents grow to love and accept their children despite their initial misgivings.
           That said, children sadly continue to be born into poverty or otherwise miserable situations. Should we prevent their births to save them from misery? If so, should we kill all people who live in ‘misery’—the mentally ill, the physically deformed, or the homeless? This seems a logical next step.
           Danger to a mother’s life poses a slightly different question. Experts agree that modern technology has all but eliminated the necessity of killing an unborn child to save its mother’s life. In the hypothetical, however, the baby would pose a physical threat to the mother’s life, so an abortion in that scenario might be construed as self-defense. Whether the mother decides to sacrifice her own life for her child’s or not (and I do think, in this rare exception, it is her choice), an abortion would still mean killing an innocent human being, however well-justified it seems.
           Lastly, is the abortion debate motivated by nationalist concerns? One could argue that the pro-life movement accords with the high value Americans place on their right to life and on their lack of tolerance—given U.S. history—for violations of their freedom. If this means that the pro-life movement is ‘infected’ by people who value life, I would still prefer that scenario to its opposite— a debate motivated by the desire to kill innocents haphazardly.

Harris Mylonas responds:

Tuesday, 4 January

          You write: “About half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, so to say that every ‘unwanted’ child has a ‘miserable’ life seems an exaggerated claim.” I never claimed, however, that “every” unwanted child has a miserable life. I only mentioned “how miserable the life of an unwanted child can be” to highlight the importance of such a consideration in the decision-making process of a woman about to make a choice. I am not making a moral judgment of any potential choice; I am just identifying a factor that possibly enters her calculations. Moreover, saying that an unwanted child “can be or usually is” miserable does not imply that all unwanted children have miserable lives.
           With regard to your comment about killing children born in poverty and other “miserable” situations, we must have a different understanding of the word. Material conditions, such as poverty, are not what I had in mind. Living in a loving and caring environment is far more important than economic status.
           Finally, concerning the point about nationalism, let me first make clear that Professor Halkias has written the book arguing that there is a relationship between anti-abortion rhetoric and nationalist anxieties in the Greek discourse. This might be completely irrelevant in the U.S. context; however, recent debates that portray the increase of the Hispanic population in certain states of the west coast (especially in California) as a threat to the American culture seem to suggest the opposite. And a question: which debate is “motivated by the desire to kill innocents haphazardly”? I know I have never entered such a debate.

RE: RIGHT WAR, RIGHT PLACE, RIGHT TIMEWRONG DIRECTION

Tuesday, 28 December

Dear Editor,
           In Andrew Olson’s article “Right War, Right Place, Right Time—Wrong Direction,” the author argues that goals should be defined for wars. On that basic premise I agree. What he does not seem to touch on, however, is the difference between a conventional war and a war against insurgents, as is the case in Iraq. This is regrettable because clearly a war against insurgents requires different goals than a conventional war. The argument does not take this into consideration, which leads to the bleak and incorrect conclusion that there are no clear goals in Iraq by which to measure success.
           The war in Iraq does have clear goals that easily measure success: to remove Saddam Hussein from power, to create a democratically elected government, and to secure the country. The first objective has clearly been accomplished. Come January, we will see a major step towards the second with the Iraqi elections. While the third still requires more effort, we will most likely have a better barometer for progress after elections in January.
           There is a series of steps by which to measure progress in Iraq. The goals are simply broad milestone goals rather than goals for individual battles as was the case in the first Gulf War and as the author suggests is necessary.
           The goals are not for individual battles because setting goals for individual battles is unfeasible given the nature of the war. By setting larger milestone goals, such as the elections in January, our military is better able to adapt to resistance from insurgents than if it had specific battle goals to accomplish. Thus, the system of goals already in place will give us a better long term measure of success than the conventional measurements the author suggests.
           This paints a much brighter light on the prospects of the war in Iraq.

Sincerely,
Timothy Shea
(t.shea@mendotabeacon.com)

The author is Managing Editor of The Mendota Beacon, a newly-founded conservative newspaper at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Andrew Olson responds:

Saturday, 8 January

          All wars, conventional or otherwise, require clear goals to prevent disaster. We had seemingly “clear” goals in Vietnam, too: remove the communists from power, create a democratically elected government, and secure the country.

          Though both these and the goals you identified for Iraq seem clear, they lack focus. Ousting Saddam Hussein constitutes a well-defined accomplishment, but the other two goals present problems. The January elections cannot constitute “a major step” unless we have a clear idea of what will follow afterwards. Fair elections in other countries—Russia comes to mind—do not always indicate working democracy. The sign that United States democracy would last did not come until Jefferson’s inauguration, with the peaceful transition of power to the opposition. Should we wait for such a transition in Iraq? What is the metaphorical yardstick?

          The generality of the third goal makes it impossible to implement. Should we secure the country for the U.S. military, the Sunni, the male citizens, or some other group? Does this include securing it for homosexuals? Any democratic Iraqi government would likely follow Islamic law and thus persecute homosexuals. How then do we balance democracy and security?

          Defining the battles, the steps along the way, would make these “broad milestone goals” clear. Merely knowing the destination never suffices; you must also know how to get there.

Timothy Shea responds:

Sunday, 9 January

          You still do not give any indication as to how you would apply your conventional goals to an unconventional war. Setting broader goals in the long term and more specific goals in the short term is the best way for our military to adapt to the changing nature of the war in Iraq and the evolving nature of the insurgency. That will give us a much greater chance of success than defining individual battles too far in advance. This may be a fundamental disagreement with your proposals, but I still maintain that specific short term goals combined with broader long term goals is the best strategy for success.