Socialist Professor Responds

Let me please take this opportunity to thank you for your feedback and to clarify a few points that seem to be at issue. Thank you to those who have sent messages of support, and to those of you whose criticisms are based in argument and reasoning, rathern than in name calling and death threats. Thank you to those of you who noticed that I took care in my pledge not to identify with terrorists, suicide bombers, or Islamic regimes, but with the ordinary people around the world, including those here in the United States. And thank you, I guess, to those of you who are praying for my salvation. I tend to see a better world as being possible here on earth and am not waiting for the second coming so that the meek can inherit their due. But at least you aren't threatening my life, and I appreciate that.

To those of you who are sending me hate mail equating me with the enemy, however, let me attempt to make the following clarifications. It is true that the format of a pledge does not allow one to present arguments full-blown. People may have misunderstood my meaning and intent because of the brief and condensed nature of the genre.

I take my freedoms to dissent in this country very seriously. I do not want to live anywhere else in the world, your invitations to exile notwithstanding. I am a citizen with the right to protest what I see as unjust and inhumane policies, both economic and military. You are correct that I am relatively privileged; I would not have the same rights to dissent and protest in countries like Afghanistan, although if I lived there, I would be part of social movements to resist oppression whether in the form of Islamic fundamentalism or U.S. bombs. Activists in the countries I named often stress the importance of critique and dissent here in the belly of the beast. I feel a certain obligation, an obligation that comes with freedom, to speak out alongside of those with less freedom to speak. I pledged solidarity not with any nation's leaders or terrorist organizations, but with the ordinary people, who are not being liberated by U.S. sanctions and bombs or by U.S. support for the Israeli occupation. I see the people in Afghanistan who were bombed as they celebrated a wedding two weeks ago as being as human as those who died in the World Trade Center, for whom I also have tremendous compassion.

I should add that people in developing countries are not being liberated by the opportunites provided by U.S.-dominated world capitalism. I do not have space to go through all the evidence for these claims, but if you have an open mind, I suggest you read some Howard Zinn, especially People's History of the United States and his more recent Terrorism and War. Suffice it to say that if you have read any history you know that the U.S. either put in place or supported with money and guns the very dictators you decry today, including the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. The United States has taken part in the undermining of democratic (defined as supported by the majority of the people, not in terms of the free market) regimes in Latin American and the Carribean almost as a matter of course (Chile, Haiti and the Philippines for example), not to mention in Asia and Africa. The list is too long to recite here.

Those of you who are offended that you might have to fight and die for my freedoms clearly have misunderstood my anti-war stance. I do not want you to be sent to other countries to die or kill, because I think those actions are not in defense of our freedoms; more often it's about protecting oil profits (even Bush Sr. admitted as much about the Persian Gulf War, which resulted in more than a million and a half civilian deaths). I don't want you over there killing civilians in my name, when my freedoms are not what is being defended at all. Neither are yours. Even though you may hate me, I don't want to you die for someone else's profits.

I do not agree with the analysis that "our way of life" offers hope and salvation to those living in other countries under dictators and in poverty. When four percent of the world's population controls more than 60% of the world's wealth, when the nation states that harbor the strongest enterprises defend those interests with force, when U.S. foreign policy and economic policy are designed to drive countries into unsalvageable debt or rubble, it is impossible for me to remain uncritical. Too often, it is not the fault of bad leaders, bad values, wrong religion, or corrupt people in other nations that brings them ruin, but the policies of production for export over meeting human needs, the support of the U.S. for dictators like the former Suharto in Indonesia, who massacred more than 200,000 people but was, according to the state department, "our kind of guy" because he supported Nike and Freeport MacMoran's exploitation of the people there. I could go on. When Madeline Albright said that the deaths of 5,000 children a month in Iraq as a result of U.S. sanctions were a reasonable price to pay for U.S. foreign policy objectives, I reacted with the same level of disgust that you are bombarding me with now.

I think we have to face these hard realities about "our way of life" if we are truly to understand "why they hate us" and to prevent acts of desperation and hatred targeting civilians in the future. I am not defending terrorism (which, if defined as the targeting of civilian life in retaliation for political and economic grievances, would apply to U.S. conduct in every war it has fought). But it seems reasonable to consider that "they" (Iraqis, Palestinians, Muslims in general) might hate the United States for the havoc it has wrought in the Middle East. Some examples: First supporting and arming Hussein when he was fighting our enemies and killing the Kurds, then slaughtering Iraq's civilian population and bombing the country back to the stone age. First supporting and arming Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan when they were fighting "the communist menace," then bombing their civilian population. . . You get the idea. The support for Israel and its wars and occupations against Palestinians against United Nations resolutions and international law doesn't win our government any friends, either. It is always wrong to terrorize civilians in response to such abuses. Yet the history is part of the answer to the question and a change in U.S. foreign policy must be part of the solution.

If you cherish the freedoms of the United States, it would be hypocritical of you to be intolerant of the expression of opinions that differ from yours. I am a well-educated, thoughtful human being. I am well qualified to teach at the University ("universe"-ity), which should be a place for thoughtful and respectful sharing of diverse views. My students get trained in critical thinking: the capacity to take in a number of perspectives and weigh evidence and reasoning on their own, which they would not be able to do if there were not at least a few dissenters among us here. I mean, the business school gets the big bucks and military- and corporate-funded research dominate the campus. It's a rare class where a student would find points of view that challenge the corporate and geopolitical hegemony of the United States. So I feel sorry for the students whose parents would keep them from attending my classes or the University of Texas because of what I wrote. Don't you have faith that your children can think for themselves? Don't you trust them with a range of positions and approaches to knowledge? Haven't you prepared them to defend your family's values? Any viewpoint is welcome in my classes so long as the arguer can provide evidence and reasoning in support of claims. Contrary to popular mythology, I do not routinely fail conservative students; I do welcome their voices in class so long as respect for others and standards of argumentation are sustained. Actually, the smarter conservative students tell me that they enjoy a good challenge, which they take as a sign of respect. And believe me, I am a member of a tiny political minority on campus that is nowhere near acting like the "thought police" envisioned by the hard right. The kind of fear I hear in the emails I am receiving and on the conservative listservs I have been monitoring is based on a complete overestimation of any single professor's influence.

In sum, I am not the enemy of freedom; to the contrary, I am among its staunchest supporters. I think freedoms should be expanded, not curtailed, in this time of crisis. I worry that now with the modified Patriot Act (which allows security agencies to perform warrantless searches, detentions, and wiretaps, among other things) and the new mega- security-intelligence agency consolidation, that we may not have these freedoms to dissent very much longer. I will raise questions about U.S. foreign policy and corporate globalization as long as I can. It is my prerogative, my right, and, as I see it, my responsbility.

A brief comment on patriotism, or nationalism: To me it seems untenable to say that I have more in common with George W. Bush, Martha Stewart, or Kenneth Lay than I do, say, with a teacher in Afghanistan or a student in Iraq or a UPS driver here at home. Likewise, they might share interests with me and have little in common with Saddam Hussein or Al Quaeda. As a socialist (not a Stalinist, and there is a difference), I have a positive vision of international solidarity and struggle against greed, war, exploitation, and oppression on a world scale. In my view, patriotic fervor dehumanizes people around the world so that their deaths or their hunger or their homelessness can be blamed on them and forgotten.

It's not like me to base an argument on the words of the "founding fathers" but let me remind you that it was Thomas Jefferson (leaving aside his fondness for slaves for a moment) who believed that criticism and dissent were at the core of democracy. He even thought that the citizenry should take up arms against a government when they thought it was becoming too tyrannical. It took a revolution to make the democracy you cherish, and in my view it will take another to make real democracy (political and economic) for the majority of the world's population.

Ben Franklin wrote that when a nation prioritizes security over liberty, the consequences could be dire for democracy. Contrary to my correspondents, I do not believe that order is the ground from which all liberty springs. History teaches quite another lesson--it took a civil war, for example, to end slavery. And "order" is a god term not of democratic societies but of fascism. Unfortunately, I believe that in this extremely sensitive time people are all too willing to embrace a notion of security--not only against terrorists but also against critical ideas and thoughtful dialogue--over liberty.

I hope that this set of expanded arguments makes for more thinking and fewer personal attacks. Of course, I hoped to provoke a response and I welcome deba†e and dialogue. I do not feel like a victim and I am not complaining about being criticized. However, I hoped to get a *real* response, not just hate and intimidation in the name of freedom.

I encourage activists with views similar to mine to come out into the light of day. The urgency of speaking now far outweighs the flak we will get for standing up.

"If you cherish the freedoms of the United States, it would be hypocritical of you to be intolerant of the expression of opinions that differ from yours. I am a well-educated, thoughtful human being. I am well qualified to teach at the University ("universe"-ity), which should be a place for thoughtful and respectful sharing of diverse views. My students get trained in critical thinking: the capacity to take in a number of perspectives and weigh evidence and reasoning on their own, which they would not be able to do if there were not at least a few dissenters among us here. I mean, the business school gets the big bucks and military- and corporate-funded research dominate the campus. It's a rare class where a student would find points of view that challenge the corporate and geopolitical hegemony of the United States. So I feel sorry for the students whose parents would keep them from attending my classes or the University of Texas because of what I wrote. Don't you have faith that your children can think for themselves? Don't you trust them with a range of positions and approaches to knowledge? Haven't you prepared them to defend your family's values? Any viewpoint is welcome in my classes so long as the arguer can provide evidence and reasoning in support of claims. Contrary to popular mythology, I do not routinely fail conservative students; I do welcome their voices in class so long as respect for others and standards of argumentation are sustained."

Uh-huh. You are rationalizing there, Ms. Professor. You and your kind are always telling us that there is no equality wherever there is a power relationship, correct? That is, if one person holds power over another, then the person over whom power is being exercised isn't exactly free to speak her, or his, mind. Even if they are told to "feel free" to speak up, they will still keep in the back of their mind, if they're intelligent and savvy, the unequal power relationship.

Well, guess what? In your tiny fiefdom of your classroom, exactly such a power relationship exists. You are the professor. They are the students. Your power resides in the grade that you give out. You can wax all flowerly and eloquently all you want about how you are open to opposing views provided they are supported with evidence and sound and are respectful of the rights of others, but that does not gainsay the unequal power distribution in that tiny fiefdom. All of your students, including the ones who agree with you, will always keep in mind -- unless they're stupid -- this power relationship.

I'm therefore sure that you flatter yourself regarding your views on how tolerant you believe you may be, but since evidence and sound reasoning are ostensibly important to you, I'd like to hear from your students whether or not what you say is actually true. See, I've been there. Done that. Seen first hand "feminist" professors at work (the term is semantically equal to the common definitions of "fascist"), and it ain't a pretty sight, in both senses of the word typically. So, unless you provide evidence to the contrary, I would have to assume that you delude yourself into believing that you are welcoming of contrary opinions. But even then, I'd wait until hearing from your students before agreeing with your opinions of yourself.

Unfortunately in Universities, you can stay away from the EE classes (well, depending on if you want to take the classes), but you sure as hell can't stay away from the indoctrination classes.

I know. I had to deal with that. Requirements for graduation. It was beyond pathetic. My worst mathematis teacher was better read than the illiterate moron who taught my class. The DiffEq teacher barely spoke English...well, the black humanities teacher barely spoke english as well. He would sing us slave songs, while being ill prepared and lazy.

I was informed by the head of the dept., after emailing all the porfs in the department, that the class teaches "critical thinking". I asked what that meant and never recieved a reply. That class effed up my GPA that semester. I'm still pissed.

You deconstruction fakers are the bottom feeders of academia. The lowest of the low. You are just a bunch of unemployables leeching off the taxpayers. In your case the taxpayers of Iowa. Communists had balls and made revolutions. Killed millions in their pursuit of raw power. While you parasites in the academy only engage in word games and posturing and seeing who can best impress the 19 year olds in your classrooms.

You aren't even a commie. Just a wannabe who thinks feminism and critical theory is a big deal

Dana L. Cloud (PhD, University of Iowa, 1992) specializes in the analysis of contemporary and popular and political culture from feminist, Marxist, and critical anti-racist perspectives. She teaches undergraduate classes in persuasion, social movements, speechwriting, and rhetorical criticism, as well as graduate courses in rhetoric and the public sphere, rhetoric and ideology, rhetoric and feminist theory, and rhetoric and popular culture. Dr. Cloud's areas of current research include the critique of therapeutic discourse, feminist and Marxist theories and politics, rhetoric of "family values," and the rhetoric of the U.S. labor movement.

Source: University of Texas - F A C U L T Y : research & teaching

Suffice it to say that if you have read any history you know that the U.S. either put in place or supported with money and guns the very dictators you decry today, including the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

Does this demonstrate failed US policies or does it show allies can and do change with the times?

England was prime factor in the foundation of the US, we rebelled and England became our enemy. Fast forward to WWI and WWII, England was our ally. So can it be said that the US was inconsistent with its foreign policy?

How about the alliance with the USSR during WWII? We shipped supplies to aid in the war against Germany, only to once again become enemies at the conclusion of the war. Did the US build up Soviet Russia in order to have someone to decry at a later date?

Foreign policy is an inexact science. Perhaps one has ally with a demon to fight the devil. If I am being mugged on a street by a gang, and the only help available is from someone I suspect will rob me at a later date, I would except the help. Foolish? Perhaps but I would deal with the possibility of being robbed at a later date... I know I am going to be robbed now if the situation does not change.

Dear Desperate Professor,

Struggling to make sense from the socialist view is a daunting task. This is especially so when arguing with people who are successful making their way as Capitalists in a society where individual freedom is still by and large cherished.

For therapy to ward off a deep depression caused by a feeling of indifference and rejection, I suggest the following two treatments.

(1) Round up scores of like minded sisters and brothers and start a co-op enterprise to show how socialism beats Capitalism in the socio-economic marketplace. It will be demonstrable proof that until now no Socialist visionary has attempted. You do have to prove to the Capitalists that you are really not bloodsuckers looking to re-distribute the savings others have worked hard to accumulate.

(2) Work on the two socialist Senators from Massachusetts who between the two have more than a billion dollars in assets. See to it that they redistribute their wealth to the needy. By the way, I would like to learn that tax evasion trick Kennedy pulled by taking his mother to Florida for several days while she was dying so he could claim his mother was from Florida and avoid Massachusetts inheritance taxes.

I should add that people in developing countries are not being liberated by the opportunites provided by U.S.-dominated world capitalism.

It is a fact that captalism cannot yield improvements for anyone without certain unfortunate problems. Many factory workers were poorly paid and worked in lousy conditions, but the wealth they generated for the factory owners was re-invested to provide factories with better working conditions which operated more efficiently, and whose owners could thus offer workers more money [and had to, to stop those workers from going to work at other factories that could offer more money]. Likewise, early steam engines were horrendously innefficient and horribly polluting, and yet it was the savings they generated which provided the capital to research improvements to provide engines which provide ten times as much useful energy from each ton of coal while producing a fraction of the 'real' pollution (carbon dioxide excepted, which per ton is going to be essentially constant).

If early steam engines had to comply with anything even remotely resembling the pollution laws that exist today, the industrial revolution never would have happened. Likewise if today's regulations regarding working conditions were applicable in the nineteenth century. It is the wealth generated when conditions are bad which allows them to get better. Prevent the generation of such wealth, and the standard of living cannot improve.

One thing which has really been lost in the world today is the notion of people toiling in the interest that their children would have a better life than their own. Unfortunately, for many classes of people today such a notion is almost unfathomable.

WOW, that was quick, thanks for the link

Commieprof, the original pledge works for me too. I don't need "under G-d" to remind me, any more than I need "of the United States of America". I don't need your bogus "pledge" either.

I don't see the controversy, any more than I believe your 11 year old daughter was delighted with the court decision. It's nonsense.

You pledge allegiance to Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan? Why? I was hoping for something serious to discuss here.

Lot's of feel good, liberal silliness. No content. Cute poem, but I even question the communication skills, though I admit FR may not be your ideal audience. Who did you convince, of what?

BTW, IMO (thats by the way, in my opinion) you should feel free to out the death threat frmails. Nothing private about that. It's not in keeping with our American tradition.

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.