Flags in Classrooms

The request to place donated flags in classrooms at the University of Central Florida presents the University with two clear choices. We can accept the flags and proudly display them in our classrooms as symbols of the political entity that guarantees our freedom of speech, our right to dissent, the rights of political minorities, and our tradition of democracy. Or, we can decline the offer of the flags and by that act cede to one political group our national symbol, likely making it a pawn in ongoing culture wars between groups jockeying for momentary advantage in what is often a low political process. The choice is, for me, simple and compelling. UCF will accept and proudly display the flags in our classrooms. In doing so, we affirm our flag as a powerful unifying symbol. It belongs to all Americans, right, left, center, or undecided. It must not be co-opted as the symbol of any one group or party.

What of the effects of this decision on our academic enterprise? I am sure that there will be some who use the occasion to create or exploit controversy, but I must reject in the strongest terms the suggestion that the presence of the flag inhibits free speech. The flag is symbolic of the very constitution and government that guarantee our rights of democracy and free speech. Were you to seek redress from actions that you believed denied you free speech, you would do so in federal court, where you would find the flag on prominent display.

I have been a strong advocate and protector of individual and group rights on our campus since the day I assumed its presidency. My administration will continue to protect the academic freedom and individual and group rights of all members of our campus community. We expect that all members of the community respect the rights of others and obey the laws of our state and nation and the rules and regulations of the University. It is a core value of academe that we respect the dignity and worth of all people.

Wormwood,

I'll try to answer your question about how flags may stifle critical thinking (although I have already addresses this topic above -- did you read it?)

Let's assume that the teacher (oh, me for instance) wants to have a dialogue in class about the definition of the word "patriotism," a word that means many things to many people, but one that you seem to understand in some absolute, certain way.

Let's assume also that several people have been arrested and/or punished on campus for defacing or removing the flags.

Will the context of permanent, officially-sanctioned flags in the classroom, combined with punishment for anyone caught messing with the flags, affect what people say and think in the classroom on the question of patriotism?

Compare this situation to McCarthyism and the Red Scares in the U.S. when it was virtually impossible to bring up a Marxist viewpoint, even for the purpose of discussion. Marxist views must be permitted in the classroom in order to have critical discussions. So must many other unpopular views. That's the way universities work.

The situation was similar in Nazi Germany when patriotism was taken to such extremes that anyone not saluting the flag strongly enough (maybe a person had arthritis) was immediately suspected of treason.

Your attacks on liberalism are disgusting. I am a liberal on some issues, not on others, but to equate liberalism with "hate of patriotism" is exactly the problem I am talking about. You are poisoning the waters with that kind of talk, making it impossible for people (other than a few like me) to even try to have a dialogue with you. You are perpetrating an ideological witch hunt againts people who have done nothing to hurt you.

I would never say the things about conservatism that you say about liberals. I listen carefully to thoughtful conservative commentators such as Pat Buchanon or William Safire. I have little time for bullying thugs like Michael Savage or Ann Coulter; for them, dialogue is not an option.

Barry

Will the context of permanent, officially-sanctioned flags in the classroom, combined with punishment for anyone caught messing with the flags, affect what people say and think in the classroom on the question of patriotism?

Well, if they *defaced* the flags, you should probably want to mention something about the word, 'vandalism' in you classroom discussion.

You could lead with, "Vandalism is both against the law and not protected speech".

Your attacks on liberalism are disgusting. I am a liberal on some issues, not on others, but to equate liberalism with "hate of patriotism" is exactly the problem I am talking about.

The fact that leftists have a well-documented antipathy toward displayes of patriotism is 'exactly the problem I'm talking about'.

ps. You keep on using the HUAC and Nazi Germany as your straw men. How about some examples of totalitarian statist terror from the friendlier sides of the political spectrum (Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro and Mao spring to mind)? Just trying to inject some balance into the 'discussion'. I

You are right about vandalism being against the law. That's not the issue though. The issue is: what happens to the atmosphere on campus after someone is crucified for vandalizing a flag? Don't you think that will have a chilling effect?

You write: "The fact that leftists have a well-documented antipathy toward displayes of patriotism is 'exactly the problem I'm talking about'." Who are these "leftists"? Where are the "documents"? If you are referring to me, let me explain that I am not opposed to "displays of patriotism" (if by that you mean people displaying flags voluntarily). I am opposed to people imposing flags on university classrooms against the clear will of the student senate, the faculty (who have yet to speak out publicly, but will) and much of the student body.

Your point about various despots such as Mao, Stalin, adds little to the discussion. Do you really want to get into a discussion of how different Hitler was from Stalin? I, for one, don't care. They were both thugs and murderers who used false patriotism to whip people up into frenzies of destruction against things they were incapable of understanding.

As a student at UCF following this whole flag controversy mess with the hippies protesting against the American flag, here's my $.02 to the I'm assuming the "Progressive Council letter" (since you didn't list the "vaious student leaders") to the administration:

1. Since flags in the classroom will affect the faculty as well as students, why wasn't the faculty senate consulted prior to your decision to publicly support ROCK's flag proposal?

The classrooms are there because of the students not the professors. The professors salaries are paid for by American tax dollars and American students tuition (and some international students (3%) tuition but since we tax payers also pay for most of THEIR tuition also to come over here, it's still pretty much American money going into that university...80% of the research dollars come from DEPT. of DEFENSE contracts)... so how is the country you live in that pays your bills so offensive again?

2. Will faculty be punished for removing the flag, if they so choose, while they are using the classroom?

It's called vandalism of university property. The teachers are there to teach not INDOCTRINATE. While you might be offended by America, you better bet MOST STUDENTS sitting in your classroom would be severely OFFENDED by you taking the American flag as that is a slap in the face to every American.

3. What are the consequences for anyone caught removing or damaging the flag?

Once again, that's vandalism and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Professor, I doubt you'll get your tenure for vandalizing your university's property.

4. Are you willing to weaken democratic principles on campus? If not, how do you justify your decision to act against the decision of the UCF Student Senate by favoring the ROCK proposal?

UCF Senate NEVER voted against the American flags, they voted against FUNDING them. Like any other student group, ROCK went elsewhere for funding when they couldn't get the funding from SGA. ROCK went to the administration for permission then went to SGA as a method for funding. While yes, several senators were against the flags all together, but the vote was only for funding, not permission (SGA does not have that power). I wouldn't be surprised if NORML in the Progressive Council bargained a bag of weed for each senator to vote against the flag funding. It's funny how NORML gets an awful lot of funding from SGA...

5. Students on campus who have voiced opposition to permanent flags in the classroom can provide documented reports of harassment from ROCK members and supporters. What will the university do to defend the free speech of those who oppose the placement of permanent flags in the classroom, and those who speak out on other controversial issues?

I'd like to see these "documented" reports. I'm sure the people from ROCK can provide even more "documented" reports from these anti-flag people.

6. Are you against open and critical dialogue and academic debate about American values in the classroom? If not, how do you justify the presence of officially-sanctioned flags that may undermine such dialogue? How will you prevent the recurrence of intimidation tactics and harassment that may
also undermine dialogue?

I think just because someone tells you they object to your anti-flag stance of the flag of their own country, I hardly call that "intimidation," that's called FREE SPEECH. For someone who pretends to like free speech so much, you certainly like to stifle others' free speech.

7. Are you willing to abandon the goals of internationalization and diversity at UCF in order to have these flags? If not, why are you willing to accept flags from Shannon Burke, a talk-show host whose racism and homophobia are well-documented?

The only "well-documented" info you have about Shannon Burke is a anti-Shnnon website with a webmaster who thinks suicide bombers walking into a cafe killing little 2-year olds are "heroes." Look at the cover of Islamic Society of Central Florida's newsletter this month, Shannon Burke is on the cover being praised for all his charitable work with the Muslim community. Tune into Shannon's show for once.

8. What would be the negative consequences of having flags placed in prominent areas of campus rather than in each classroom?

Whether it's in classrooms or outside, it's our country's flag, there's nothing wrong with our American flag.

I saw the news Friday, the first flag went up! I think that's awesome that ROCK got them in. I can't wait to go to class now. I hope my pro-flag stance hasn't "intimidated" you, I'm just merely practicing a little thing called free speech. Your comments about ROCK make me want to join the club even more. How do I contact them?

ucfdeltagirl,

I will try as best I can to explain to you why your responses do not cut it.

I didn't put the students' names on this post to freerepublic because I don't want to subject these people to any misguided wrath without checking with them first to see if that's what they are up to.

These questions were proposed to President Hitt, not to you. If Hitt had answered these questions the way that you just did, he would be hounded out of office, and rightly so.

"Hippies?" I am not one, never was. Even if I were, what good is name calling of that sort? It does nothing to counter the arguments of the anti-flag position.

1. Since you are talking about my salary, I would like to point out that it comes from a number of sources, some of which is state money, but very little of it federal money. By that token, we should have a Florida state flag in the classrooms. In any case, I am somewhat underpaid and could make more in the private sector.

The research money that the defense department puts into UCF is returned in the form of research, not in the form of flags.

The classroom should be a space for free academic inquiry into core American values, behaviors, and values. It should not be used as a platform for promoting someone's narrow view of patriotism. It should not be used to test people's loyalty or allegiance to some narrow set of prescribed values.

As I mentioned to you before, I do not find the flag nor the country I live in to be offensive. I find a plan to force flags on people who don't want them offensive.

2. "Removing flags" is hardly vandalism. Let's say I remove a chair from a room. Is that vandalism? Not if it's still on university property and I return it to the room when I am through with the room.

I do not "indoctrinate." I teach. In fact, ask conservative students who have taken my classes in the past five years and they will tell you the same thing. What is good teaching? For one thing, it should probably make some people uncomfortable. So what if it does? This is a university, not a grade school.

I often teach texts by right wing artists and thinkers. Sometimes these texts make liberal students uncomfortable. Again, that is my job. I also teach the U.S. flag in class. I don't care if it makes people uncomfortable because it is part of a temporary learning situation in which the rules of dialogue apply. They are not officially-sanctioned flags, but flags used for the purpose of learning what a flag is.

Finally, I never said I would take down a flag. I am not stupid enough to fall for the trap that ROCK is trying to set for me and others like me who find their whole scheme to be a form of red-baiting and neo-McCarthyism.

3. As I said, I am not condoning vandalism against flags or anything else. The question about what the punishment is for vandalism, however, is appropriate to ask of the president.

Now, as for your insinuation that I might lose my tenure . . . the very suggestion on your part leads me to believe that all this talk of the flags symbolizing freedom is just hot air. The people proposing the flags intend to use them as bludgeons to punish ideological enemies.

Wouldn't you rather have tenure decisions based on academic qualifications and accomplishments rather than on some loyalty test set up by ROCK?

By the way, you should read about what happened to the universities in Germany during the Nazi period. They threw out academic standards too and went to loyalty tests, just as you are proposing.

4. The SGA considered many issues besides money in their consideration of the flag issue. Money seemed to me to be one of the least of their concerns. The greatest concern they had was that a great number of students didn't want the flags.

Your insinuation that NORML bribed SGA senators with pot for their "no" vote is disgusting and slanderous.

5. I don't think anyone would trust you with reports of harassment from ROCK members. The police have several reports and President Hitt is aware of them.

6. Tell me you love flags; I won't try to shut you down or shut you up. Put a flag on every surface you own. Eat flags for breakfast. I will have no complaint. Try to destroy the academic environment, however, and I will have a lot to say about it.

7. I have listened to Burke's show at least three times. He makes me sick with every sentence he says. I have little doubt that the website about him is accurate. However, I am willing to listen to the tapes of his shows to verify it. Do you have them?

8. I am not against flags, just as I am not against classrooms. I am against flags in classrooms, especially at public universities, because we need a free space for academic inquiry into American values.

You can contact ROCK by taking a right. Go for a while and take another right. Keep taking rights until you can go no further. That's where ROCK is.

Barry

I didn't come here for flaming, though I do expect it. I came here to present reasoned arguments. I expect that some people on a conservative website will respond to those arguments. In fact, there is another conservative website where a very interesting discussion occurred between myself and the webmaster.

Here is the URL for the discussion: http://NOBLE.CBNOBLE.COM/archives/000604.html

I am 38 and have spent the past 22 years on college campuses, plus my father is a university professor and has been since the time I was two, so you could say that the university is my life. That's why I'm so protective of it.

And that's why I am very sensitive to proposals that would change the atmosphere of the classroom.

Now to respond more specifically about the claim that flags will shut down critical thinking. I agree with your point that the flag is a piece of fabric, and as such is mute. However, the people who planned the flag installation are not mute. Nor are people like Shannon Burke. If Burke had his way, he would have all liberal professors at UCF "replaced." I heard that he said that on the air and I have written to his producer asking for verification. The producer wrote back to me and said he is checking it for me.

Now certainly if all liberal professors were replaced, that might dampen some critical thinking, maybe a wee bit, eh?

This flag proposal is not about flags; it's not about loving your country; it's not about supporting the troops; it's not about decorating the classrooms. It's about assaulting perceived ideological enemies.

Am I wrong?

Barry

My view of college campuses today is -- things are getting polarized. It's not as polarized as it was in the 1960s, but it could get there.

At least the 1960s resulted in some positive reforms for universities. The free speech movement, for example, had an enormously positive effect on society as a whole and opened up discussions of topics not previously entertained on campuses, let alone anywhere else. It allowed for open discussions about wars, leaders, economic policies, international relations, race, etc in a way that had not been seen before.

I think discussion of that sort is healthy, even if it does become heated. I did not like the violent clashes of that time and I hope to avoid them today.

I think the question of WHO donated the flags matters to some extent, but even if Campus Peace Action had proposed putting the flags in the classrooms I would have opposed it. My first priority is to maintain the classroom as a "sacred space" free of ideological interference as much as possible.

I don't think people are turning anti-American, at least at UCF I don't see that. What I do see is people who are sick of being pushed around by what they perceive as a radical right-wing coup that took over the government and is pushing revolutionary policies through at a furious pace, destroying everything they love about America -- tolerance, the rule of law, justice, truth, compassion, civil discourse, etc. They see a group of people like ROCK who are willing to support these radical policies by any means necessary, just as the Brown Shirts supported Hitler early on in his regime by beating up and intimidating opponents, including students and professors with whom they disagreed.

I see nothing positive coming out of the polarization on campuses these days, except perhaps for some new organizations like the Progressive Faculty Federation (of which I am a founding member) which are trying to act primarily to defend ourselves against attacks like Shannon Burke's.

No need to be nice. Just be sincere and thoughtful.

Barry

I discovered by reading the link you posted earlier that you are in fact a professor. You are way above my paygrade as far as debating goes, but this last post is interesting.

You state that you want a "Sacred space" free of idealogical interference. So, in other words you choose not to display a flag in order not to take one side or the other? Does the majority detest the flag and what you think it stands for? Have you asked them? Does it matter? Do you stand when the national anthem is played? The pledge of allegiance at a grammar school play?

I gather that there are a number of students who are buying into a "Right wing conspiracy" theory that may only exist on Foxnews and AM radio. Wow, about 3% of media may be conservative minded. I suppose many of your students have forgotten what we are fighting about and instead put all they're misinformed emotions against the Patriot Act, or the spending of money to rebuild a country devestated by a lunatic. It will be interesting to read the history books in twenty years.

I didn't know my professorship was in doubt . . .

I have only mentioned current politics this semester in one class, and that was only during the last two minutes of my last class on Friday last week. The reaction most students had to the flags coming in the classroom was alarm. Some had reported hearing Shannon Burke compare flag opponents to some type of animal. Many were skeptical about Hitt's comments.

I told them I was not prepared to have a full discussion but that we could at a later time. I said I would set ground rules at such a times so that the exchange could be fair and everyone would feel safe participating.

I am not neutral in politics. I make that absolutely plain. In fact, if I do discuss current politics in class, I usually start the discussion by presenting something I've written -- that way I show the students exactly what my current position is. I don't like teachers who have an agenda and pretend to hide it. Mine is in the open.

I don't go to sports events or grammar school plays. The last time the national anthem was played at an event I attended was for a dance group from India, many months ago. They played the U.S. national anthem and everyone stood, including me. I saw the audience, which was mostly Indian, as genuinely believing in the good American values I cherish -- freedom and opportunity and fairness. I had no problem standing up with them, although I am not a big fan of the anthem (I much prefer Woody' Guthrie's song "This Land is My Land")

I am one of those people who buy into a right-wing conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are not necessarily wrong. For example, the CIA engaged in a conspiracy with Pinochet to overthrow Allende in Chile, right? That's a conspiracy.

Similarly, neo-con zealots have overtaken American foreign policy and much of its domestic policy as well, am I right? They are dismantling traditional modes of governance and are intent on creating a one-party state, am I right? That's a conspiracy.

Again I don't know where you get your statistics, but way more than 3% of all media is "conservative minded." ClearChannel owns close to 30% of the radio market. Rupert Murdoch owns double digit percentages of the print market. Etc.

I don't think the emotions expressed by students (in groups such as Campus Peace Action) about the patriot act or the Iraq war are at all out of line.

In case you are interested in reading more of my views about the Iraq War, the Bush administration, the peace movement, and the tactics of the right wing in America, I recommend you go to http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~bmauer/Free.html

I have nothing to hide about my political views.

Barry

The question you ask -- is objecting to flags in the classroom as polarizing as proposing flags in the classroom? -- not at first, no. Because there haven't been flags in the classroom for forty years, and no one complained about the lack of flags, objecting was not polarizing but merely "conservative" in the sense that it sought to maintain the environment that everyone had come to expect.

Now that the flag is such a hot issue, anything one says about flags can be seen as doing something "polarizing." I happen to believe that ROCK wanted things to be this way. They picked the most divisive thing to do they could think of. Even pro-war protests didn't get people this polarized. I know you can't believe the flag is so divisive, and in fact by itself it isn't. But the specific proposal -- a flag in every classroom -- along with the implied threat of being tarred as "anti-patriotic" if you don't go along, really lays down the gauntlet for people with fears about McCarthyism, etc.

I think there were many other options for ROCK if they didn't want to be divisive. They could have proposed to put flags in common areas of campus (large meeting rooms, public gathering places in the student union or in front of the library, etc) and they could have offered to co-sponsor some kind of legislation with other groups. Their steadfast insistence on the classrooms as their targets, however, indicated to many people that they were seeking to make a wedge in the school in order to isolate "liberals" and anyone critical of U.S. policy as "traitors," which sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

So what to do now? I fear that both sides are prepared for a "scorched earth policy" in which they are prepared to sacrifice the reputations and jobs of those on the other side in order to "win." I don't like this situation at all. Furthermore, I don't like to sound like I'm on a playground, but "they started it!"

Can we please have our school back now?

Barry

p.s. thanks for the praise about my tone. I am sincerely sincere.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.