Based on the mail of the past month, a lot of people still want me firedfrom
my teaching position at the University of Texas for my antiwar writingsin
the aftermath of Sept. 11.
Many accuse me of being "anti-American," but ironically it is their callto
limit political debate that is anti-American, for it abandons the corecommitment
of a democracy to the sovereignty of the people and the role ofcitizens in
forming public policy.
Some of the folks writing to me -- and to the president of my university--
do not mince words: Jensen is not supporting the war effort. So, he should
be fired.
Other people, perhaps aware that such a call violates any reasonable conception
of free speech and academic freedom, take a slightly more nuanced position:
Because Jensen is so political in public, he cannot possibly teach in a fair
and objective manner (though none of them has ever visited my classroom).
They reach the same conclusion: He should be fired.
Both arguments are attacks on any meaningful conception of democracy andhigher
education. Let's test the logic of those calling for my firing.
In several essays between Sept. 11 and Oct. 7 (posted at http://www.nowarcollective.com/analysis.htm),
I (along with many others in the antiwar movement) argued against military
retaliation, on moral and practical grounds -- innocent civilians abroadlikely
will die, making future terrorist attacks more likely by deepeningthe anger
and resentment against the United States in the Arab and Muslimworld. Once
the war began, I continued to oppose the reckless Bush policythat has created
a humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan as the war blockssignificant food
distribution and the civilian death toll mounts. Eventsin the world suggest
this analysis coming from opponents of the war has beenpainfully accurate.
Throughout, I have suggested that Americans should confront the ugly history
of U.S. attacks on civilians in such places as Southeast Asia, Latin America
and the Middle East to understand why so many around the world see us not
as the defender of freedom but as a violent bully.
If I had supported the president's decisions and endorsed a military strike,
would anyone have suggested I should be fired? Clearly not; many academics
have done that without criticism.
Whatever the merits of either the prowar or antiwar position, one thing is
inescapable: Both are political. So, my correspondents' real objections cannot
be that I am political, but instead that my political ideas are unacceptable
to them. That means their actual argument is that in times of crisis, certain
analysis and ideas are not acceptable and certain views should be purgedfrom
public universities, which sounds pretty anti-American.
It is of course dangerous to label any idea "anti-American," because theterm
suggests that there can be political positions that are fixed forever.But
the foundation of the U.S. system is (or should be) an active citizenry;being
a citizen should mean more than just voting every few years. We havethe right
-- maybe even the obligation -- to involve ourselves in the formationof public
policy, and in that process no one can claim that some proposalscannot be
voiced.
If that's true, then those calling for my firing are anti-American to the
bone; their patriotism is supremely unpatriotic.
In my writing and speaking since Sept. 11, I have not supported terrorism
or minimized the depth of the pain that Americans feel. I simply have suggested
that it is important to understand the reasons that terrorists were willing
to fly jets into buildings. Our president's claim that terrorists "hate our
freedoms" is embarrassingly simplistic, to the point of being childish. It
is time to face honestly the way in which U.S. foreign policy -- so often
cruel, callous and indifferent to the suffering of innocent people -- must
be understood as part of this story.
Those are political arguments. No matter what one thinks of the soundness
of the arguments, expressing them is an act of citizenship. In a democracy,
we do not surrender to leaders the right to make policy undisturbed by the
people.
If people want to eliminate spirited political discussion from the universities,
what is left of higher education?
If they want to punish the exercise of citizenship, what is left of democracy?
Robert Jensen is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas atAustin,
a member of the Nowar Collective (www.nowarcollective.com) and authorof the
forthcoming book Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins
to the Mainstream. He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.