UofM-Dearborn ALL anti-war?
 

i'll be proud for them sticking to a view that is unpopular.

Ship them back to the Middle East and let them sing their "Anti-War" shit there...

BTW, an anti-war guy became the president, so you might become the president of us later on. ;)

Is that possible? It would be one thing if you went to a private school... but for ANYTHING to be "officially declared", you would think there would be LOTS of people to go through first.

I think the idea sucks because obviously every single person on your campus is not anti-war... but it will be interesting to see how many signatures they actually accumulate. I wouldn't worry too much about it though because I can't imagine a student government or a university system that would allow this to continue.

Do they honestly think they'll be able to make a statement like that without a current student or alumnus coming out and refuting it to the media? If so, they are an extremely deluded bunch. :rolleyes: They are entitled to say whatever they want, but if they try to say that they represent the whole campus officially, they will just end up looking like jerks.

The school really can't do anything, any more than they can do anything about the party school rankings (there's a jump for you). Now if one of the members of the org stole official stationary from the admin and released a statement on it - or if the org said that "President Whosit backs us" and he doesn't - then that's another story, and they could get in mucho trouble.

Crap
 

This is just one of many stupid acts that has occured in universities around the world.

-Rudey
--I agree with champ.

PM_Mama, I have to disagree with what this group is doing. It's hard to speak for EVERYONE for anything... (unless the decision is unanimous of course.. from EVERYONE in your school)

I'm all for free speech, so if they want to say The-Group-Name is anti-war, cool.. more power to them because they all feel that way, but you can't do that for an entire entity like a University with so many diverse views from the faculty, staff, students and alumnus.

There have been tables in our 'free speech area' on our campus with random groups with signs for anti-war, and that's cool. But if they wanted to speak for EVERYONE on campus, including me, I'd be against it.

I'm with Texas Princess and most of the other posts.

If a group wants to speak for THEMSELVES, then hey--knock yourself out. As a DAR who pushes for American history education, I say understand your rights/responsibilities and use them!

But the minute you try to rope in other people, not necessarily w/ their consent, you have a problem. What the group is doing is a pretty standard PR tactic: associate a "big name" w/ their efforts in order to increase both legitimacy and sympathy for their cause.

I agree w/ PM_Mama that if this blows up in the University's faces, it could affect job outlooks for graduates for years to come. Students don't often think of that (my age is showing, no disrespect to current collegians intended) when they plan activism. For example, when I say the name "Kent State", what's the first thing that comes to mind? $10 says it's that infamous photo of a student lying dead on the sidewalk with a woman screaming over him. 30 years later, no matter what else Kent State does for its students, faculty, the community, etc, that is what people remember. A Kent State graduate could find a cure for cancer today, issue a press release tomorrow, get it approved by the FDA next week, people will still remember that Vietnam protest image first and foremost.

There is enormous potential for that to happen again here. The consequences in the long-term could be even greater, given that sentiments are mostly split down ethnic lines.

If there is any way to make sure that ANY group does not formally associate its views with the University itself, it would be a good idea, IMHO.

Adrienne
(PNAM-2003)

OT - Kent State
 

I remember seeing a documentary on I think the 25th anniversary of the shootings, where students said that they were tired of hearing about May 3 and that it was the admin that kept talking about it....they wished that it would be downplayed, because they chose Kent for its academics and hated that the shooting was the first thing everyone thought of. So it's a double edged sword - that is the thing that makes people look at you, but it's also the thing that might make people look away.

Roger that....complain about war when you have a cruise missle up your ass.

I would imagine their views would be different if they were downtown NYC on 9/11/01.

what does 9/11 have to do with iraq? don't believe all the hype, this has nothing to do with 9/11. unless of course u belive everything the white house said, nevermind CIA has said there is no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. if you read papers on the two, you'll know that both side (al-qaeda and Saddam Hussain)despise each other.

Hussain is a tyrant, but he is no worst then other tyrants we have supported, such as Suharto, noriega, Shah of Iran, Pinochete, etc.

If I recall, I didn't link Iraq to Al Qaeda. Just saying, that there are evils out there that need to be dealt with. 9/11 was the beginning of the end for people/governments who support terrorism in one way or another.

Also, the CIA and the Whitehouse probably only reveal 20% of what they truly know, to the public. I am sure they are sitting on a whole crap load of evidence, just waiting to unleash on them.

Why else would Bush be sending a few hundred thousand troops to that area? I am sure its not for a good game of Risk.

Pro-America here, anti-evil. Keep on rockin in a FREE world!

I would be a whole lot smarter keeping my thoughts on this to myself...but what the hell.

First, to the topic of the thread. It's stupid for any group to claim that any organization is 100% agreed on any topic. They will just make themselves look ridiculous.

Now, to digress in the direction of many other posters...the upcoming war.

My age, experiences and background leave me really conflicted at the moment. I lived through the Vietnam era and was just out of college and working as a television director (6 and 11 PM News) in Columbus, about 100 miles from Kent, when the shootings occurred. Those two things have left me and a large part of my generation really questioning a lot of things.

I'll try to organize my thoughts, which keep racing wildly in different directions.

First, if nothing else, Vietnam left with me a not very subtle feeling of mistrust of things I hear from our government. History (tapes, archives, letters, papers etc.) from the Presidents (both Democratic and Republican) prove that our leaders were less than candid with us. That's being kind. I'm not a big George W fan, but would like to believe him. I wish I could see the "smoking gun" that they keep looking for. And before you take off on my politics, I'm not registered in either party -- have voted in every election since "Vote 18" passed in 1968, and have probably voted for an equal number of each party's candidates. I lean more toward conservative than liberal, but don't consider myself either.

Second, if we go to war, I hope the professional military officers are allowed to prosecute it -- and it is not subject to political pressures and medeling the way it was in Vietnam. We would have won that war if it had been run by the Pentagon instead of the White House.

IF it's really necessary to fight, let the Air Force turn the Iraq into a parking lot and send in the Marines to paint the stripes. Yes, innocent people will be killed. That happens in war. That's tragic, but if we don't want any collateral damage, we shouldn't go to war. Period. That's reality.

Third, regarding the shooting at Kent State, I truly believe that the late Governor Jim Rhodes and General Sylvester DelCorso, former Ohio Adjutant General should have been indicted and tried for murder after the Kent State incident. The local and state grand jury investigations were a white wash.

Rhodes, a conservative Republican from the Apalachian counties of S.E. Ohio (he was a friend of part of my family) was out to prove a point to all unruly college students. Of course he didn't expect shots to be fired and people to be injured and/or killed, but he put loaded weapons in the hands of young National Guardsmen who had no training whatsoever in riot control and no combat experience.

Also, not many remember that Kent State followed closely on the heels of a national Teamster truckers strike. Many of these guardsmen had been riding "shotgun" on independent trucks -- some of which had taken fire. These kids were scared, and not particularly stable. Putting them in that situation was criminal.

The final irony is that none of the killed or injured were taking part in the "demonstration." They were walking to class or their cars or whereever. Bullets from badly aimed military wepons travel a long way. These dead kids weren't peacenik hippies -- one was an ROTC student. All were simply minding their own business on campus. Nobody in the crowd that was allegedly threatening the guardsmen was hit.

I appologize for the rant, but I find it difficult to support sending our professional and civilian soldiers into harms way without some proof of the claims of Wepons of Mass Destruction in the hands of an admittedly tyranical despot. Prove he has them and his motives, and take him out. But the fact we don't like him just isn't a good enough reason for me. I wish the hell that W's dad had finished the job the last time. Another political decision.

(I questioned again whether to post this -- but guess I will. Some of my opinions seem a little strident especially about Vietnam and Kent, but were formed after living through the turbulence of those times. So, here they are for whatever they're worth.)

Well, u used the same analogy that Bush used, the 9/11. Which is the reason that we can never have an honest debate in the hill. Those who are opposed to Bush's rhetoric and if need be going alone attitude, with disregard to international law, are now painted as a softy and supporter of Al Qaeda.

Interestng note, there are Al Qaeda in Iraq, but not in Hussein controlled area, but in northern Iraq with the Kurds where the US and British airforce provide cover. Ironic isn't it?

Funny how you created such a beautiful mix of names there. But you're wrong about at least one of them. Arya, I've read a lot of your comments about Iraq. You manage to duck out quite frequently when certain facts and questions are presented to you. Very few people can defend not going to war because they simply do not know enough about the region - they're "bandwagon fans". However, if it is in your view that war and violence are not acceptable, that that's a respectable position on its own.

How does everyone feel that groups like this get a ton of funding from outside sources? Outside sources could mean groups/charities/trusts/etc. with questionable ties from outside the US. Oh and I guarantee that a good chunk of their members are not US citizens as well - so at a public U.S. university, essentially whose views would be represented by such statements?

-Rudey
--Real

Once again, totally feeling Rudey's comments.

On that note, what does everyone else feel about our government training Iraqi exiles, from what I've heard, as many as 3,000?

I just hope something like this doesn't come back to haunt us in the future.....thoughts anyone?

True i do not know the region well from a personal experience, which i doubt u do as well, but I do get information from sources which few people get. Not talking about CIA stuff, but other sources. Though the CIA info easier to get then u think. This is after all, the same agency that send arab speaking agents to Pakistan. Kinda like sending Japanese speaking agent to Korea. however, thinking bout it, i don't think any university, unless there is a majority vote from the students, staff, faculty and alumni, should consider themselve either pro or against the war. And since when does citizenship matter when they are espousing their view? or what funding? Should I silenced the local Young Republican or young democrat because i don't like both parties? Restricing the voice of anybody used to be accepted, back when the constitution only applied to White, Christian, Land Owning member of the staes. We have evolved, though our foreign policy have devolve. Many Organizations are funded by outside source., NYPIRG, AMnesty, Save the Baby.

Back to the topic, my main concern is the evolution of international law, which we have violated in many instances, such as the invasion of grenada. Talking to many diplomats, officially they'll say that they are with the US, privately they are more concerned that the US is doing the same thing they did to the League of NAtions, rendering it uselss (that debatable, as i see the security council as useless due to tis undemocratic system of veto, whicn ironically the US was against but the soviet was for in the formation of the UN) But as I and many have argued, international law only exist for those without a nuclear weapon.

And for the tyrans that i wrote, which on of them was a benelovent democratically elected leader? Suharto and his holocust of over 250,000 East Timorese (which we not only supported but funded and armed and trained. With the military back in power in that country, we want to start trainig them again. So much for beacom for democracy and freedom)? Noriega? (trained by School of America now changed to something else, but still functioning)? They are all tyrans, despotic, scumbags. But hey, they're our scumbag.

Sorry DeltAlum, I didn't get through your whole message because it was just too dang long...ha ha

Anyway, I don't disagree with any of you who think we may be jumping too quick, or being the international bully. But, I still think that we, the public, do not know 1/3 of what truly is going on in these situations. Christ, imagine if we did, the whole fricken country would be up in arms. "Holy cripes eh, the North Koreans have nukes that could reach the USA in 5 hours, I better build a bomb shelter and get a gas mask".

I have faith in my government, my President and those who serve in our armed forces, that if the right thing is to go to war, then I support it 100%. If you cannot support our country in these times, I suggest moving to Iraq and living their under their regime and then protest it.

Someone in this world has to supress the governments that "try to rule the world". Sadly enough, if it were allowed, countries today would still beat up their neighbors just to take their land. The USA is not bullying the world or trying to rule the world, we are just basically monitoring it and making sure crap doesn't get out of hand.

I refuse to be that group that says "Meat Tossers" in PCU.

If its not war, then its red meat and if its not red meat, its anti-abortion and if its not anti-abortion its war again....protest shmotest.

My two cents.

PS, oh yeah, as for training those other groups...I think its a bad idea. Didn't we do that for the Taliban decades ago when they were fighting the Russians? That blew up in our faces.

"True i do not know the region well from a personal experience, which i doubt u do as well, "

Wrong.

"but I do get information from sources which few people get."

I spend several hours a day, every day, reading these kinds of analyses. I am willing to bet that you have patted yourself on the back with this remark - but either way, it makes no difference in my conversation with you whether you got your information from a source a lot of people have access to or very few people have access to unless you had top secret clearance (in such a case, I wouldn't believe you'd be spewing info on GC so that's not an option).

"This is after all, the same agency that send arab speaking agents to Pakistan. Kinda like sending Japanese speaking agent to Korea."

That's not the best criticism to make. Arab speaking agents have a good role to play in Pakistan since many people speak Arabic.

"And since when does citizenship matter when they are espousing their view? or what funding? Should I silenced the local Young Republican or young democrat because i don't like both parties? "

Citizenship does matter in the case of a public AMERICAN university. Your example of Republicans and Democrats does not apply here for that reason.

"Many Organizations are funded by outside source., NYPIRG, AMnesty, Save the Baby."

There is a difference between an international organization that is composed of views from all places and a public Michigan university.

"Back to the topic, my main concern is the evolution of international law, which we have violated in many instances, such as the invasion of grenada."

You're making this too easy. I don't care about Grenada right now. I care about Iraq and the resolutions, including the specific type of resolutions, that have been passed in regards to it.

"Talking to many diplomats, officially they'll say that they are with the US, privately they are more concerned that the US is doing the same thing they did to the League of NAtions, rendering it uselss (that debatable, as i see the security council as useless due to tis undemocratic system of veto, whicn ironically the US was against but the soviet was for in the formation of the UN)"

While, I don't mind talking about foreign policy, I feel there is no point to it right now. Bringing up that you're speaking with diplomats doesn't really make your point more valid simply because you are not Kofi Annan.

"And for the tyrans that i wrote, which on of them was a benelovent democratically elected leader?"

The Shah of Iran was not democratically elected, since he was a monarch, but he was more benevolent than you could understand. People who had know nothing about this man, nothing about this country, and nothing about this region sure did love to attack him however. And most people believe that his son will be the next ruler of Iran - democratically elected and all - after the toppling of a cruel regime that rode into power on protests of abuse.

And Damasa, I don't like the idea of putting weaponry into the hands of any government that is vulnerable.

-Rudey

Re: UofM-Dearborn ALL anti-war?
 

We've actually discussed a few of U of M's policies in one of my classes. One that got me.. and you can correct me if this is wrong is that a professor can be fired or severely disciplined for using language that "disempowers" females... Such as saying "mailMAN".

If this is the case, I can really see how such a silly idea as an entire campus declaring themselves "anti-war" could fly. They wouldn't be the first though. I seem to recall a few left-coast schools declaring themselves anti-war it seems just as soon as they possibly could following the 9-11 attacks.

I support the students for standing up for something they believe in.. I don't agree with them.. But their cause is noble. Their methods however give cause for concern. I'm always troubled by groups that think that only THEY have a legitimate right to free speech. When they want to get their opinion out that's fine... It troubles me that they want to silence and disempower those that take a pro-war stance though. Everyone has the right to be heard.

As well it should. You are absolutely right.

It's only fair to point out, though, that the peace movement during the Vietnam conflict was battered by the government and the "Love it or leave it," faction in the country.

Both patriotism and dissent can be useful in keeping the country on the right path.

There is nothing wrong with being a patriot, being a blind patriot, that is supporting your country no matter what, is as dangerous as being a traitor.

A little to "black and white," I think, Arya. As used, the word IS is pretty all encompasing. It seem to leave no leeway for differences in situation.

If you had said "being a blind patriot CAN BE as dangerous," I could pretty much agree. In many cases.

Having no tolerance for dissention would have been repugnant to the spirit of the creators of the Constitution and the founding fathers of the country, I believe.

Remeber that many who came to this country, and framed our form of government, did so in order to escape the tyranny of another government. Many still considered themselves "loyal subjects" of their former Monarch/Country/Government. I suppose they really did, "Love it or Leave it," but I think that in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, they hoped that nobody else would ever have to make that choice.

That's why I have little tolerance for people who hide behind that phrase as opposed to listening to a different side of a political arugement.

Isn't Freedom of Speech another way of saying Freedom of Opinion -- and taking it a step farther in allowing those opinions (no matter who disagrees) to be verbalized with a fair amount of impunity?

Remember Folks, the military doesn't make the policy. My fear is that we are swinging back to the same attitude toward the solidiers, sailors and Marines that we had during Vietnam. These young men and women have volunteered to serve their country and deserve our respect no matter how we feel about the war. My son has made the choice to serve in the Navy and unfortunately, he's noticed a subtle shift in attitudes when he's wearing his uniform. That should never happen. He and others have taken a harder path and deserve more from the people of county he's sworn to protect.

Getting off my soapbox now

Hello, 5-year-old thread!

But I was interested, so I did some follow-up research and learned that this anti-war resolution at UM-D did indeed pass.

http://media.www.themichiganjournal....n-359067.shtml

It also looks like they were not alone. This article - http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=448 - contains a list of all universities who, as of 3/30/03, had or were considering such resolutions.

For what it's worth.

I never saw that article or heard about it. I'll have to read it when I get a chance. Thanks for posting!

PS. Those who heard about the footbaths at UMD.... they're in.