Considering political statements
Universities are wasting a golden opportunity to practice what they teach. While CU can’t end wars, it can teach students how to think about international conflicts in ways that reflect what we know about human behavior. Students can be taught how to think critically about even their most cherished positions and can understand the futility of trying to solve complex human problems by searching for a “right” answer.
Many disagreements about the Middle East are based on the different world views embedded in the expectedly different narratives of different groups. For example, it’s difficult to resolve differences in the absence of a shared system of meaning. The ability to tolerate and work with such ambiguity, including the skills needed to develop empathy despite profound differences, can be taught.
Universities can also educate students about how humans behave in crisis situations. Faced with perceived danger, humans resort to evolutionarily primitive ways of responding: fight, flight or freeze. As none of these states supports high-level rational thought, universities can teach students not only about the psychobiological responses that compromise problem-solving but also about how to recognize and compensate for such compromised abstract reasoning ability. This would enable students to avoid reflexively acting from their survival instinct after the immediate danger has passed.
In addition, universities can educate students about intergenerational trauma: that certain reactions to current events may be influenced by the experiences of previous generations. While an explanation of intergenerational trauma is beyond the scope of this editorial, it should not be beyond the scope of university curricula — unless we’re content with history repeating itself yet again.
Elyse Morgan, emorgan2975@gmail.com
Pressure on CU’S Ethnic Studies Department to retract its statement on the Israelhamas war raises long-standing questions. Should universities issue official statements on geopolitical and social controversies? Should their leaders speak out or remain silent?
As a dean at private and public universities and director of an educational foundation, I wrestled with these issues. To my mind, five considerations are paramount.
First, to make or decline to make a political statement is a political move. Inescapably, universites are embroiled in public controversies.
Second, university leaders are bound to face competing demands over what are deemed inappropriate actions on campus. Politicians, foundation officers, powerful alumni, business executives, outraged students and principled faculty members apply heavy pressure.
Third, there’s no easy way to balance the differing principles in play. Inscribed in university mission statements, they do not carry equal weight.
Fourth, as a corollary, it is imperative to hew to these time-honored principles: The academy’s purposes are training for democratic citizenship, fostering critical thinking and protecting academic freedom. The task is to respect opposing views, challenge dominant perspectives and allow free expression to flourish.
Fifth, free inquiry does not mean that anything goes. Certainly, keywords evoke emotion and risk escalation. For example, one person’s “terrorist” is another person’s “freedom fighter.”
Leaders have a responsibility to cultivate open debate and engagement with rival ideas. This is the way to empower members of a learning community to clarify their own values and beliefs. The beauty of the university is that it can enable self-understanding.
Jim Mittelman, jhmittelman@yahoo.com
As a CU employee, this embarrasses me. Is Hamas writing press releases for the Ethnic Studies department or has the department simply lost their minds? The original post described the Israeli attack on Gaza as if it was unprovoked. Zero mention of the 1,400 civilians, including many children, slaughtered by Hamas. It is a disgusting mark on CU’S reputation even though it has been somewhat scrubbed.
Individuals in the Ethnic Studies department can have any view they desire, but when they post to the university website, that speaks for CU. The department demanded an Israeli ceasefire. Their demands aren’t even a fart in the wind. They called for CU to back them. Instead, the chancellor said to stand down.
This is similar to the Ward Churchill episode back in 2001. He was revealed to be a plagiaristic liar misrepresenting his heritage for professional gain. CU showed him the door. Churchill’s political opinions aroused interest in him, but he was not fired for those opinions.
The Ethnic Studies department took a similar risk. On its web page, the department states that they are “dedicated to centering the … histories, and lived experiences of marginalized communities.” Clearly, they have little interest in history. Victimhood appears to rule their minds to the exclusion of all else. That’s unfortunate. Especially at a university, where we should be striving to see things from all sides, to educate ourselves first, and only then make up our minds on where we stand.
The situation in the Middle East is storied and complex. There isn’t space to give this issue justice here and the current horrific conflict has blame to go around, but Hamas shoulders the bulk of it.
Bill Wright, bill@wwwright.com
We are living in a time where intense fear and emotions are exacerbating the violence and rhetoric driving war. Trauma is everywhere. This is a natural response to the disruption and horror of the atrocities taking place in Israel and Gaza, in Ukraine, and around the world. With such intensity of anger and fear and hatred, language matters. Truth and facts matter. The statements made by CU’S Ethnic Studies Department did nothing to foster empathy or trust, and did much to inflame the situation. Language matters, especially now as global events reveal the vast differences and complicated histories and cultural divides that contribute to atrocities waged against fellow humans.
Without trust, there is no potential for dialogue. And dialogue is essential if we are ever to achieve peace. This is not just my viewpoint. This is the common belief among peace activists that I have been following who are working on the ground in the Middle East offering aid to victims of war. These extraordinary people advocate and work for peace through the diligent work of meeting with people who are full of rage and fear and listening to their stories, seeing them as fellow human beings.
The history of Israel and the Middle East is incredibly complex. The horrors of civilian deaths in Gaza as the result of Israeli bombardment is horrific. The Hamas attack was tantamount to the 9/11 terrorist attack on the U.S. There is so much pain and terror, and to watch it play out from the safe perch of Boulder makes me feel disconnected and helpless.
I am thankful for activists working diligently to alleviate suffering as they advocate channeling discontent into something more productive: a collective movement to help all of us — especially those who are diametrically opposed — to find our common humanity.
Rachel Walker, rodellwalker@gmail.com