- Men’s ice hockey dominates UConn 5-2
- Bobcats hold off Siena to maintain the top spot in the MAAC
- A perfect pair
- Student Media teams up against domestic violence
- The Clery Act
- University set to release new website
- Volleyball closes out home stand with win over Siena
- Putting the university to the test
- Men’s soccer beats Monmouth for fifth straight MAAC win
- Women’s volleyball picks up five set victory over Marist
Teach In: Serving anti-war propaganda
I recently heard of the 1960s style teach- in organized by a few Quinnipiac professors. I feel incredible sympathy for the unfortunate students who attended, some perhaps thinking that a serious discussion on the war in Iraq might take place.
I decided not to attend, figuring that if I was interested in listening to anti-American propaganda, I could just catch the next news clip tirade of Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden.
The lexicon of double speak that professors use to lure students into unabashedly anti-Bush, anti-American, and anti-War “teach ins” across this country’s college campuses is indeed powerful, and the three letters, (PhD), that usually follow a professor’s name can often endow them with a level of respect that they do not deserve because of their actions.
I have no enmity for intellectuals in general, or even every professor involved in this “teach in.” Indeed some of the professors who organized this event are among my favorites, and I have had the honor to have classes with a few of them over the course of my Quinnipiac career.
I also understand that the majority of the faculty at Quinnipiac is inherently biased for they are only human; but as a future teacher, and a student in the M.A.T. department, I take personal umbrage with this event being in any way associated with teaching.
Is teaching history supposed to revolve around a one sided, biased, and unfair lecture on current affairs? I would argue absolutely not, and that education depends more upon the open and free discussion of events based on truthful and unprejudiced information.
Any presentation that is as intellectually lop-sided as this “teach in,” is a smack in the face to real education, and those involved should be ashamed. If biases and inaccuracies are allowed to parade as the gospel truth, where is there room for discussion?
Can an unashamedly biased lesson be considered teaching, or does it sound more like indoctrination to you? These are questions that is seems to me were not asked before this event was orchestrated, and the recent War debate held this Monday seems like an attempt to cover this fact up.
I encourage all my fellow students to visit www.campus-watch.org, it is an excellent forum which exposes the truth about many of our country’s professors, and how they let their politics mix with their scholarship.
Lastly, I would like to comment on the anti-war movement in our country. It is of course not anti-American to be against war in general. I personally know veterans, who volunteered for military service that are against this war in Iraq. This open discussion of events, the right for Americans to agree on disagreeing is what makes our country what it is.
Many of the protestors in our cities though are only masquerading as anti-war, concealing their less accepted anti-American and anti-Bush rhetoric.
Where were these protests when the American military acted in Yugoslavia, Haiti, Sudan, Afghanistan, and previously in Iraq? Why else would groups like the Workers World Party and Eco-Defense be supporting these rallies?
Why are these seemingly unrelated political entities, one determined to defeat the capitalist system, and the other determined to stop people from over-using natural resources involved at all?
Do these groups have any real stake in a war in Iraq? No. Do they have a stake in seeing America defeated? The answer of course is yes. Both groups are a direct affront to the American system which has provided material comfort and free from fear for every person reading this article.
So while it is within the rights of these people to protest, see them for what they are. For many of them their cause is neither as innocent nor as benevolent as it may appear.
They equate civilians who die as result of war with those whom are killed in terrorist attacks, and they have categorically decided to forget any of the atrocities which Hussein has committed.
They believe nothing which our leaders say, but take for granted Iraqi statements on their weapons. Does this make and sense? You of course already know the answer to that, and realize the ridiculousness of these antics.