Rebuttal to the condemnation letter by some of the members of my department, the Social Sciences Department at SRJC. My comments are marked in blue. Though fewer than half signed this letter, it was still a blow to have people with whom I've worked with for twelve years write so public a condemnation, particularly since they never gave me a chance to present my side of the story. And it really pissed me off as well. Someone asked me the other day, "How do you feel about the letter from your department?" I answered, "Well, my world has gotten a whole lot larger of late. Unfortunately, in this case, my department also got a whole lot smaller"....and I didn't have size in mind.
SRJC faculty: Instructor off-base
July 21, 2003
By JACK WEGMAN
Publicity about a recent political science assignment at Santa Rosa Junior College has generated a firestorm of controversy. Many members of the Social Sciences Department have been approached by colleagues, both in and out of this department, regarding the exercise conducted by political science instructor Michael Ballou.
Myself, and the members of the Social Science faculty listed below, wish to make clear that we do not approve of the recent actions of Ballou. We do not accept his poorly reasoned attempts to rationalize his instructions to his political science students.
While legitimate concerns were raised as to whether or not students were clearly instructed to send the e-mail, there was universal agreement that the exercise was poorly thought-out and its purpose questionable.
I've used this exercise for approximately seven years. Probably over 1,000 students have heard the instructions of the exercise with no confusion of content or context. So why the problem now? What variables have changed?
Ballou claims the design of the exercise was to get students to recognize their deeply held fears of a police state. But the experiment does not confirm these deeply held fears; instead, it assumes these fears exist.
Yes, I claim these fears exist and the exercise bears me out. If they weren't there, then students would point that out and I wouldn't have an object lesson to talk about. This has worked reliably in the past so I've had no reason to reconsider the use of the phrase and the exercise. The exercise is no longer useful because with all the fuss, the taboo value of the phrase has been lost.
Some students concluded that Ballou has proven his point that some "big brother" is watching by virtue of the fact that he was questioned by the Secret Service. The implication is that the Secret Service is somehow watching every e-mail that gets sent into cyberspace.
What actually occurred is that a student contacted an elected official, who then contacted the Secret Service as is his responsibility. This hardly proves the existence of a "police state." All it proves is that the Secret Service is doing the job it was created to do: protect the president. By analogy, if one called the fire department and told firefighters that his or her house was on fire, they would expect a fire truck to show up.
Really? Then why involve the other students? Why not just limit this to the student who sent the email? Why not keep it to a "threat assessment" of what I'm doing or saying in class? Do not lose sight of the fact that I have not been charged with anything and neither has the student. I think my students in their interviews were referring to the hoopla of the incident in total...the school's notification of the media, the presence of the Secret Service, the FBI. It was all such a circus and it was too soon for any of us to connect the dots. We were just overwhelmed by the contrast between the smallness of the exercise and the hugeness of the response.
Having said that, clearly, these groups had an object lesson of their own in mind and this is all meant for public consumption. Something else is going on here if one takes the time to look beyond the superficial (which is exactly what academics should do by the way). As I said previously, my exercise was about people's fear of government surveillance in particular and government in general, and as such is a corollary or precursor to the "police state" charge. As my students know, "government" is more than just Washington D.C. and Sacramento; it's a package in toto of tangibles and intangibles, of official and unofficial variables. Just look at the latest adventure/fiasco of the Secret Service. What message are they trying to send there? My incident could have been handled behind the scenes, but it wasn't. When all is said and done, I think fair-minded people will see that the "police state" and "thought crime" labels is not beyond the pale, as a few of my colleagues so smugly ignore.
My students knew that the phrase itself was instrumental, but only incidental to the object lesson of government surveillance. This was not about pulling fire alarms just to watch the fire truck pull up. This was explained in detail in previous rebuttals. I sent my department my explanation. Since they didn't answer my emails, nor invite me to their meetings, they composed this letter with no input or feedback from me. There is also no evidence that they read anything I've had to say except through the soundbites and short quotes of the filter of the Press Democrat. Obviously, some members of my Department are so convinced of their own perspective in this issue that even having an alternative point of view in the same room is unthinkable. So much for genuine academic freedom.
Over 1,000 students have been given this exercise with no fallout. Again, what changed?
We wonder whether Ballou disapproves of all government efforts to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens? What about government response to the actions of white supremacist groups? Is this sort of government effort appropriate?
This is a great example of "straw man" logic. Of course, I don't disapprove of efforts to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens. I don't see their point here either. Again, the phrase "kill the president" is instrumental, but only incidental to the object lesson. Furthermore, the President of the United States is a political figure. Political dynamics are not the same as good neighborliness.
Our concern is that students in Ballou's classes are receiving a very narrow and simplistic analysis of complex issues. Students need to be taught that the civil liberties of Japanese-Americans were suspended during World War II; that President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War; and that the Secret Service was created in 1865 after President Lincoln was assassinated. Ultimately, students need to be taught political science within the framework of U.S. history. We agree with President Agrella that it is objectionable for any instructor to use "the classroom lectern as a bully pulpit to espouse personal political learning."
Whoever wrote this (Jack? Marty?) doesn't want to acknowledge violence against the State in American history. Although my personal beliefs are non-violent, I would be a dishonest teacher to ignore its place in American political history. (ironic, isn't it that a people who are so shocked at political violence are so violent towards each other at home and abroad?)
Consider these quotes by Thomas Jefferson and John F. Kennedy:
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable." —JFK
Clearly, these two famous political figures are advocating violence against oppression from our own government. What do my colleagues make of them?
At least half of the members of my Department are elitist-minded or closet-elitist in their value systems and political beliefs. It will come as a surprise to them that my personal political beliefs and the value system I teach in my classes revolve around the political application of "systems theory". To get to the systems theory level of analysis, however, we have to first trudge through the factual lies of an iconic view of American political history and the swamp of the demonic "team sports" view of the Conservative/Liberal/Republican/Democrat/Rich/Poor debate. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that I view their elitist values as limited and simplistic and throw their own judgment of me back in their collective faces. The Universe is a much bigger place than the hierarchical-minded are fostering or willing to accept.
Furthermore, the reluctance of the students to complete the assignment might suggest that Ballou's students have a deeper sense of moral thoughts and actions than does their instructor.
Again, I've used this exercise for approximately seven years. Probably over 1,000 students have heard the instructions of the exercise with no confusion of content or context. So why the problem now? What variables have changed?
Indeed, if Ballou did instruct students to send an e-mail that threatened the life of the president, or any individual or group, then we agree that the instructor placed students in both a dangerous and immoral position.
Again, I've used this exercise for approximately seven years. Probably over 1,000 students have heard the instructions of the exercise with no confusion of content or context. So why the problem now? What variables have changed?
Ballou's justification is that he has taught more than 1,000 students in the past 12 years, and none has been injured by the assignment. Following this logic, drinking and driving is not dangerous as long as it does not result in an accident.
Huh?!! Is the concern here that young, impressionable minds can’t handle the responsibility of so weighty a 3-word phrase. Well, I’m at a community college where my students are mainly adults. I don’t know what a fourteen-year-old was doing in my college class, but you’d think he or his parents would check in with me before notifying the FBI. The person who actually sent the email was a 37 year-old woman. But so what? We don’t put knives away just because someone gets stabbed from time to time. We teach responsible knife usage. But let’s assume either of these students had a good reason for doing what they did. People are sick and tired of the constant alerts and alarms. In the face of that, I think one student fed into the fear and the other acted defiantly.
None of my students were encouraged to impair their faculties with alcohol before typing the fateful phrase. They weren't given an email address. Most of them don't even get near the keyboard. But even if I accept your assumptions, do you really expect reasonable people to believe that tracking the phrase "kill the president" actually protects the safety of the real President? But assuming it is true, I've pointed out in several places that in blowing this so wildly out of proportion, the actions of the College, the Secret Service, the FBI and the media have endangered the life of the President. You seek to vilify me, but the truth is if I employ your own logic, you've done far more damage to the de facto ability of these agencies to protect the President...don't you see that?
There are those who argue that the root of this problem is academic freedom. We strongly reject the idea that academic freedom is the problem. Indeed, the fact that we have the right to critique Ballou's course content, pedagogy and format on academic grounds is precisely why academic freedom is important.
Academic freedom has never meant, nor should it ever mean, that faculty have blanket immunity for any statement or action in the classroom. We are constrained to teach to the curriculum and standards that we, as instructors, have created.
We wish to emphasize our position that instructors need maximum latitude when teaching. Different students learn in different ways, and instructors must be free to emphasize issues that may cause the student discomfort. The issue here is not academic freedom, but the obligation to teach in a manner that is both responsible and accountable.
The First Amendment does not guarantee the absolute right to freedom of speech. Similarly, instructors cannot hide behind the notion of academic freedom in the classroom as if there are no limits to what the instructor can do or say.
Santa Rosa Junior College has a rich and enviable tradition. It is our hope that members of this community will not judge the institution by the misguided actions of one individual. Indeed, we hope that members of the community will continue to take classes from our dedicated faculty. In conclusion, it is notable that the reason this issue has received so much attention is by the very fact that it is such an anomaly within the history of this department.
Teachers claim a neutrality of point of view and value system that doesn't truly exist. The best an instructor can do is to state his premises or show her reasoning. Quite frankly, since most of the data we use will be obsolete ten years from now, the best thing an instructor can do is show people how to think. Rather than lay claim to a bland mediocrity that offends no one (a corollary to "political correctness" by the way), SRJC could choose to support and embrace a spectrum of political opinion and pedagogical technique. I am simply astonished at the "lowest common denominator" attitude of some of my colleagues. They look upon the students of a community-college with secret contempt. Just more elitist thinking in my book.
So sorry fellow academicians, I really don't find your arguments a "refreshing academic perspective" as the PD editorialist spun it so warm and fuzzily.
As I said in a previous entry:
My, my...two more two negative editorials in the Press Democrat, subsidiary of the New York Times. The first was yet another brutal and personal attack from the school composed of re-hash of previous arguments (did anyone even bother to read my explanations/rebuttals?) It also totally ignored the questions I raised about the complicity of my College Administration et al. The second, sillier editorial came from whoever writes anonymous editorials at the PD, subsidiary of the New York Times. Besides setting the reader up for the letter from the College, this one pleads with me to "let it drop". "SRJC instructor needs to join others in letting this go" ran the sub-title. Either I've got to stop breaking into the PD at night or the hypocrisy of this is just too funny.
For someone who didn't email anything, hasn't been charged with anything, hasn't been arrested for anything and hasn't lost his job over anything, I sure do seem to be the personal object of a lot of people's scorn. The Press Democrat and my College had better be careful. This much overkill may lead people to believe my version of things. Blowback, my friends...law of unintended consequences. Seems to be the theme of the times.
Jack Wegman is an economics instructor at Santa Rosa Junior College. The following SRJC instructors are signatories to the piece: political science instructors Jeanette Ben Farhat, Patrick M. Broderick, Monte Freidig, Claudia Moura and Steve Rabinowitsh; history instructors Martin Bennett, Anne Donegan, Ann Exton and Tim Wiese; and economics instructor Ronald W. Schuelke.
P.S.
This overkill on the part of the PD could just be for selling papers or part of the historic mission of the New York Times as the purveyor and enforcer of accepted civic behavior and discourse.... "All the news [that our ruling class deems] fit to print" in other words. For SRJC, some have argued in private that the overkill is my College Administration protecting its funding sources and creating a non-offensive "big tent" environment to maximize student enrollment. If the first motive is true, then SRJC is funded by some pretty reactionary conservative people. So let's name them and get this all out into the open. I want to know whom I'm sucking up to. If the second premise is correct, then couldn't SRJC just as well package itself as representing a broad spectrum of politics and approaches?
I thought the "melting pot" ideology had been thrown out in favor of the "salad bowl" metaphor. I have a problem with blandness as you can tell. We're still a community college. Is that what the community really wants?
Finally, I have been teaching summer term. That's four months of material condensed into six weeks. I've been handling this controversy with one arm tied behind my back. After next week, I'm going to ruminate over the phrase "kill the president" and give it some serious consideration. It's obviously hit a nerve in the American group psyche. With the real President's growing serious political problems, the timing can't be an accident either. So thank you for overlooking the typos or syntax errors. You're seeing this unfold in near real time.
Send mail and comments to mbsrjc@comcast.net
Thank you for visiting my page. Please come back and visit again!
