Interesting article in today’s Times, describing how a newer breed of more politically moderate professors are replacing more liberal professors hired in the ’60’s.
Baby boomers, hired in large numbers during a huge expansion in higher education that continued into the ’70s, are being replaced by younger professors who many of the nearly 50 academics interviewed by The New York Times believe are different from their predecessors — less ideologically polarized and more politically moderate.
The authors are careful to note, however, that:
The authors are not talking about a political realignment. Democrats continue to overwhelmingly outnumber Republicans among faculty, young and old.
The article mentions Amherst:
Yet already there are signs that the intense passions and polemics that roiled campuses during the past couple of decades have begun to fade. At Stanford a divided anthropology department reunited last year after a bitter split in 1998 broke it into two entities, one focusing on culture, the other on biology. At Amherst, where military recruiters were kicked out in 1987, students crammed into a lecture hall this year to listen as alumni who served in Iraq urged them to join the military.
I don’t like this statement at all.
First, it links a political compass with support for alumni who have served in the military - as if students had to be politically conservative moderate to support the service of these men and women! Like most liberals on campus, I wholly support and honor the troops but firmly oppose the War in Iraq. But this statement fails to make that distinction. Supporting our men and women in combat has absolutely nothing to do with my ideology on foreign policy.
Second, there is of course no mention of the heavy debate we had this year about Amherst’s relationship with the military. No mention that the decision to allow recruiters on campus was at least in part a response to a Supreme Court decision that would allow withholding of up to $6 million in federal funding. No mention of Pride Alliance demonstrations for discrimination under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” No mention of the Student’s reversal of advertisement policy giving the staff the ability to reject ads from the military. No mention that we brought two high-level officers to campus this Spring - General Wesley Clark and Colonel Andrew Bacevich - who were both opposed to the War in Iraq from the beginning and have endorsed Senator Barack Obama.
So this statement is both offensive (only conservatives can support the troops) and inaccurate (the position of Amherst students regarding the military has changed of late).
Poor journalism, I say.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Gregory Campeau (gcampeau11) // Jul 6, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I should note that Professor Bacevich has not exactly endorsed Obama; that is, I don’t believe he will be voting for him. To my knowledge, he merely stated that of the two candidates, McCain and Obama, only with the latter is there any prospect of peace. (Though with Obama’s recent bending to Iran hawkishness, I’m sure Professor Bacevich is thinking of revising that statement.)
2 Dave Ullman (dullman10) // Jul 6, 2008 at 7:32 pm
As always, I should have cited my sources - my apologies, Greg.
I’d bet you are looking at his essay in the American Conservative. It’s a great piece of writing - almost makes me want to become a conservative. In any case, he finished his essay with “For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one.”
Now, you could certainly (and correctly) argue that this is not an explicit endorsement. But Prof. Bacevich did, as a member of “Historians for Obama,” sign on to the statement “We endorse Barack Obama for president.” I’m sure you’d agree that this is an explicit endorsement, assuming the website is reputable and certifiable. Amherst’s own Professor Wills and Professor Saxton are apparently both members of this group as well. But please do let me know if you do find anything with evidence to the contrary.
3 Gregory Campeau (gcampeau11) // Jul 7, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Dave,
Thank you for the link to the “Historians for Obama” list; I had never seen it. I had a conversation with him several months ago, before the American Conservative article, and he seemed to lean in a different direction. But I guess he has indeed cemented himself in the Obama camp now.
4 mmuller11 (mmuller11) // Jul 8, 2008 at 4:12 am
Dave,
I fail to understand the necessity of separating military personnel from the activity in which they are engaged. This separation seems especially strange given that our military is an all-volunteer force and no soldier currently serving in Iraq was forced to enlist. While he or she may have hoped that he or she would not be sent to Iraq or may have enlisted before the war began, the fact of the matter is that he or she chose to serve our country in arms, meaning he or she signed up to kill and to fight enemies of the state. I understand that the military may serve other nominal purposes besides killing and fighting, but these are its primary functions and its reason for existence.
Perhaps this separation is useful if one only takes issue with our particular engagement in Iraq but I believe the article was pointing out that a large part of the student body supports the military and takes interest in the military as a career opportunity, something that seems unlikely on a more liberal, radical campus. Amherst has become a place where the military can come and set-up shop fairly easily and without confrontation. I appreciate the efforts of the GSA, but handing out shirts and participating in ‘heavy debate’ is hardly enough when the most effective and prolific killing machine of all-time is infiltrating a college campus.
You also mentioned Tony Marx’s submission to the recent Supreme Court ruling. I wonder if perhaps Marx did enough to stand up to the ruling. He (and we) could have sent a message to the college community and to the government if we had denied the military admittance on our campus and began a massive campaign to raise the lost funding using alumni giving and other private donations. I think the issue that the article raises is that our campus makes the military feel safe and encouraged when on it, which it would not on a campus that rejects war and military action in all its forms.
5 Dave Ullman (dullman10) // Jul 8, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Well Michael,
It’s certainly possible that we have a difference on this - I would, however, still stand by my comment that “most liberals” on campus would side with me on this one.
Personally, I cannot fault American men and women for serving their country in Iraq or out of it. The fact is, we elect officials to govern this nation and make the tough decisions on domestic and foreign policy so that the ordinary American does not have to. Don’t forget - both the Executive and Legislative branches approved this War. The soldier is serving not only the leadership of this country but the people that elected it. Thus, we should put the responsibility on exactly where it belongs - the politicians that brought us to war, and especially the Commander-in-Chief.
Additionally, the All-Volunteer Force assures that you and I do not have to fight in a War we consider illegitimate. How could we criticize the soldiers for that?
But I think we are in agreement that most people on campus do not reject war or military action in all forms. Most of us agree that some things are worth fighting for - slavery, genocide, basic freedoms and human liberties. The trick is only using force when it is absolutely necessary. In my opinion, the War in Iraq does not meet that requirement.
It is therefore important to remember that Amherst did not ban the military on campus because it is “the most effective and prolific killing machine of all-time.” No, it was not allowed on campus because it discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation - a policy fundamentally at odds with the Amherst College Honor Code.
But maybe I’m off here - please let me know! I’m sure military recruiters will be back at some point, so this issue won’t go away.
You must log in to post a comment.