Now the American Flag is a racist symbol

[Trapper John]

I wonder how the faculty would react if conservative student's petitioned to have Condeleza Rice speak at their commencement ceremony?

Oh wait, we saw the answer to that last year!

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

MOO, the most effective ways to affect change in the Ivory Tower are (1) to make sure that junior high and high school students acquire the skills and confidence they will need to define their educational needs, and (2) let academics continue to have the increasingly energetic debates over higher education that are take place in the open (if one knows where to look).

IMO, treating academics as a monolithic group is the opposite of "divide and conquer." As an example, Howard Gillman, who built his career at USC, is the type of academic who is going to call BS on excessive asshattery in the Ivory Tower but will be among the most capable defenders of academics.

I would prefer to drown them all.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Surf n Turf

Richard,[/COLOR]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you parse the paragraph it supports the position, not the right of the students to have an opinion --- see below

SnT

Parsing the paragraph shows 4 things:

* support for the student's 1A right to voice an opinion
* support for a position that the university has a responsibility to protect that right and the students
* support to their claim that such an opinion has a historical foundation (atchd pic e.g.)
* support for an argument that such issues can still arise when somebody challenges a nation's patriotic symbol by citing the context of many current responses to the student's opinion

Richard

[Roguish Lawyer]

Big difference between protecting their right to express the opinion and letting them ban display of the flag, which is itself protected speech. In their world, it's OK to ban speech as long as it does not comport with their fucked up values.

[Streck-Fu]

The Flag has been used by many different groups with many diverse objectives and interests. Often they display the American flag as they identify as Americans. That does not mean that the American flag is symbol of whatever they stand for.

The flag is not a symbol of racism.

The students are free to express their opinion but they are asking for the removal of the flag from display. Perhaps they should be show pictures like the attached instead.

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Richard

Parsing the paragraph shows 4 things:

* support for the student's 1A right to voice an opinion
* support for a position that the university has a responsibility to protect that right and the students
* support to their claim that such an opinion has a historical foundation (atchd pic e.g.)
* support for an argument that such issues can still arise when somebody challenges a nation's patriotic symbol by citing the context of many current responses to the student's opinion

Richard

Uhh....you kind of missed this one:
"The resolution recognized that nationalism, including U.S. nationalism, often contributes to racism and xenophobia, and that the paraphernalia of nationalism is in fact often used to intimidate. This is a more or less uncontroversial scholarly point, and in practice the resolution has drawn admiration nationally from much of the academic community".

[Richard]

Originally Posted by sinjefe

Uhh....you kind of missed this one:...

Falls under third asterisk.

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

The Flag has been used by many different groups with many diverse objectives and interests. Often they display the American flag as they identify as Americans. That does not mean that the American flag is symbol of whatever they stand for.

The flag is not a symbol of racism.

The students are free to express their opinion but they are asking for the removal of the flag from display. Perhaps they should be show pictures like the attached instead.

Unfortunately, the flag has been used on occasion as a symbol in ways other than what it is meant to represent to legitimize the intimidation of some groups of American citizens by other groups of American citizens in a "We hold these truths to be self evident...except for this group or that group" sense. Such is History and why I favor this view of 'patriotic duty' by 19th Century US Senator Carl Schurz (Rep - MO):

“I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves … too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country—when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right."

As far as the students at UCI go - they put forth a resolution, it was considered and put to a vote, and it was voted down as being 'wrong-headed'. Students undertaking student affairs on a college campus IAW a normal system of accepted governmental practices within a democratically constituted federal republic. What a concept and what a lesson to be learned - for everyone.

Personally, I'm much happier to see something like this overly hyped bit of foofarah happening in lieu of the armed campus takeovers, bombings, and such of my generation. Perhaps we are making progress after all.

MOO.

Richard

[Sigaba]

What is the point of arguing that UCI should not do something that it has already said unequivocally it isn't going to do?

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

Big difference between protecting their right to express the opinion and letting them ban display of the flag, which is itself protected speech. In their world, it's OK to ban speech as long as it does not comport with their fucked up values.

Concur. Their concept of tolerance is a one way street - their way.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by sinjefe

Uhh....you kind of missed this one:
"The resolution recognized that nationalism, including U.S. nationalism, often contributes to racism and xenophobia, and that the paraphernalia of nationalism is in fact often used to intimidate. This is a more or less uncontroversial scholarly point, and in practice the resolution has drawn admiration nationally from much of the academic community".

FWIW, historians have long established the negative impact of unrestrained patriotism upon matters of public and national security policy.

In regards to the latter, diplomatic historians of varying political viewpoints have pointed to significant crises/lost opportunities that were exacerbated by nationalist sensibilities. Perhaps most notably, President Wilson's insistence upon redrawing boundaries based upon nationalism following World War I contributed to an unsustainable political order in Europe and Asia.

Of late academic military historians are increasingly focused upon the impact of nationalism upon the effectiveness of professional armed forces, especially IRT Germany in the twentieth century.

MOO, these findings add weight to Clausewitz's warning against "the passions that are to be kindled in war."* Further, these findings support the need for professional statesmen, diplomats, and soldiers to strike a sustainable balance between the national interest and the unchecked mandates of nationalism.

YMMV.
__________________________________________________
Carl von Clausewitz, On War, eds./trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), 89.

[Hand]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

FWIW, historians have long established the negative impact of unrestrained patriotism upon matters of public and national security policy.

Do you consider displaying an American flag in a space owned by an American University built on American soil in the United States of America to be unrestrained patriotism?

I can see how unrestrained patriotism would be undesirable in matters of state, yet I would be disappointed to learn that anyone representing this nation at a state level position did not have to restrain their patriotism during business hours.

[craigepo]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

FWIW, historians have long established the negative impact of unrestrained patriotism upon matters of public and national security policy.

In regards to the latter, diplomatic historians of varying political viewpoints have pointed to significant crises/lost opportunities that were exacerbated by nationalist sensibilities. Perhaps most notably, President Wilson's insistence upon redrawing boundaries based upon nationalism following World War I contributed to an unsustainable political order in Europe and Asia.

Of late academic military historians are increasingly focused upon the impact of nationalism upon the effectiveness of professional armed forces, especially IRT Germany in the twentieth century.

MOO, these findings add weight to Clausewitz's warning against "the passions that are to be kindled in war."* Further, these findings support the need for professional statesmen, diplomats, and soldiers to strike a sustainable balance between the national interest and the unchecked mandates of nationalism.

YMMV.

__________________________________________________
Carl von Clausewitz, On War, eds./trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), 89.

Right. But, is this one of those times? We aren't talking about Nazis coming to power, diplomatic historians or President Wilson. We are talking about a few professors who want to remove an American flag from a state-supported university, because it's "racist".

Nobody disagrees with their freedom to speak. Rather, they disagree with what they are saying.

A person can be patriotic and disagree with their country's stance. Nonetheless, Sinjefe's and other's points were well-taken: this article's assumption that U.S. nationalism often leads to racism and xenophobia is perfectly and wholly nonsensical. The author's point of finding the original writers' courageous turns most people's definition of "courage" on its head.

[PedOncoDoc]

Originally Posted by Hand

Do you consider displaying an American flag in a space owned by an American University built on American soil in the United States of America to be unrestrained patriotism?

Especially since this and most other institutions rely heavily on federal grants to support academic work....

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Hand

Do you consider displaying an American flag in a space owned by an American University built on American soil in the United States of America to be unrestrained patriotism?

I can see how unrestrained patriotism would be undesirable in matters of state, yet I would be disappointed to learn that anyone representing this nation at a state level position did not have to restrain their patriotism during business hours.

The answer to your question is no. My POV on this issue is this: I am not going to be trolled by a handful of undergraduates. Their idea never had any chance of becoming policy at UCI or any UC campus.

Moreover, I think that many who are critical of UCI's handling of this controversy are falling into a trap and thereby forfeiting a gift wrapped opportunity to discuss the benefits of American nationalism with those who have differing views, especially young adults.

Originally Posted by craigepo

Right. But, is this one of those times? We aren't talking about Nazis coming to power, diplomatic historians or President Wilson. We are talking about a few professors who want to remove an American flag from a state-supported university, because it's "racist".

Judge, I think you and I have different readings of the letter quoted in post. (I agree with Richard's interpretation.) I think that the letter is poorly phrased and very badly written. I think that its writers failed to ask the basic question: Does this letter say what we think it says?

Originally Posted by craigepo

Nobody disagrees with their freedom to speak. Rather, they disagree with what they are saying.

With respect, some of the public outcry suggests otherwise. The talk of the forced removal of American citizens--and worse--is not only inappropriate but serves to buttress the characterizations of American nationalism that some find controversial.

Originally Posted by craigepo

[t]his article's assumption that U.S. nationalism often leads to racism and xenophobia is perfectly and wholly nonsensical.

I disagree.

In the present day, terms like "Un American" are used to label politicians, policies, and persons as a means to derail debate and to demonize the opposition.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I am not going to be trolled by a handful of undergraduates.

And with that, I think this Thread has run it course.