Port 80

In addition to the University of Dayton, one of the other schools I considered attending was Marquette. From what Michelle Malkin has posted today, it doesn’t look like my issues with campus ministry would be any different there. Marquette just shut down a College Republican fundraiser for the Adopt-A-Sniper campaign.

Upon Marquette’s statement on the incident, two things quickly become evident. First, it is clear that Marquette’s reaction was little more than a panicked response to a student group which pushed at the university’s comfort zone. The sole item at the table Marquette cites as specifically objectionable, “a bracelet with the motto ‘1 Shot 1 Kill No Remorse I Decide,’” does not exist. Although the Adopt-A-Sniper campaign sells dogtags with that logo, their bracelets are engraved with a completely different phrase. This sort of easily-checked factual error bespeaks a press release drafted with great haste and without much proofreading.

Secondly, Marquette’s response gives a frightening look into the academic left’s take on freedom of speech.

In the context of the university’s Jesuit, Catholic mission, we could not allow fundraising in the student union for a group whose rhetoric regarding “snipers” could be widely misinterpreted as having a cavalier attitude toward the taking of a human life.

Is this all that is required to suppress free speech by a private organization - the expectation that the words of that organization could be widely misinterpreted by those who didn’t do the necessary research? This statement brings back memories niggardly incident in Washington DC. Has a Catholic university decided that the limits on free speech should be decided by the misinterpretations of the ignorant? How is it possible to conduct academic discourse if speech can be forbidden without even considering the intent or meaning of the speaker? Certainly, if Marquette had examined the Adopt-A-Sniper campaign for more than a few minutes, they would know that “One shot, one kill” is not “rhetoric” but the long-standing motto of the sniper community.

The most damning admission, however, comes at the end of Marquette’s press release:

Marquette University strongly supports and honors the men and women of our Armed Forces and has sponsored many activities to support our troops. In addition, every branch of the United States military is represented on our campus though the university’s ROTC program.

Clearly, Marquette isn’t blocking the College Republicans because of some higher commitment to the ideals of pacifism and nonviolence. Marquette appears perfectly comfortable with supporting the troops when the ugly reality of war is held at a safe distance, and all they have to do is wave yellow ribbons and watch the ROTC corps hoist a flag every morning. However, Marquette’s administration just can’t stomach the idea that our troops might actually be called upon to bring death to the enemy.

Supporting the troops as long as you aren’t bothered with the ugly details of what they do isn’t a “proud tradition.” It’s the basest sort of moral cowardice.

[L]egal participation in war gives the soldier the right of life and death over strangers – and I had exercised it legally. If you don’t like the result, don’t send kids to war with guns. — John Rotundo, Charlie Rangers

I’ve written a lot about the CSC over the past week, and have gotten a fair deal of feedback on my work. Of particular interest is that some students at the University of Dayton have started dropping by. I do wish that my host hadn’t broken referrer tracking at the moment - I’d love to see how everyone is finding this place.

Because of this traffic, I feel that I need to briefly address a few issues which are of interest to the community there. Thus, I’m going to start off with an appetizer (Editorial Flambé), move onwards to a cold dish (Aged Story garnished with juicy Exposé) and as a segue into the main course of this post (Roast Analysis of Organizational Structure.) Bon appetit!

(more…)

Today, I submitted a lengthy editorial to the Flyer News for publication. This is the post I mentioned I was working on in my last entry.

I could just link to the online version of the piece when it’s published - and I probably will eventually - but I’m going to try to use a few of the advantages that weblogging offers over print media. The most important of these is the lack of length restrictions - I’m almost certain that this piece will be trimmed for publication, but what I’m submitting here is the original work. The other advantage that posting online offers me is the ability to provide my sources - just work your way through the hyperlinks in the article.

This won’t be the last from me on this topic - I plan to blog any responses I get to the editorial. I will be detailing a little bit more of the connection between International ANSWER and the Workers World Party in future postings. In researching this editorial, I’ve come across many small tidbits which haven’t been linked together. With any luck, I can save someone else a little research.

It amuses me to no end that, if printed, this editorial will be the closest thing to investigative journalism that’s shown up in the Flyer News in several years. Even University papers now get to worry about the pajamaheddin.

Update: As of 14 January, the Flyer News has posted the editorial on their website. I’ve also started receiving some mail on the piece - some negative, some positive, all thoughful. Most interestingly, the Flyer News has made their online opinion poll question of the week “Do you agree with the actions of the Center for Social Concern in regards to the protest at Ft. Benning?” It will be interesting to see the results as students weigh in.

Full Editorial Text

In the final December issue of the Flyer News, the arrests of Brian DeRouen and Megan Doty at Ft. Benning were given lengthy and highly favorable coverage. While this reporting dealt with the consequences of these arrests in Georgia, it did not discuss the issues raised by these arrests here in Dayton. These arrests are the current high-water mark in a long stream of events supported by the Center for Social Concern (CSC) which have been at best questionable, and at worst criminal.

By design, the CSC is an organization meant to unabashedly embrace and promote Catholic social teachings. It is unsurprising that some of these teachings will be controversial. What is surprising and unsettling, however, is the CSC’s tendency to jump to conclusions and engage in actions that appear to be ideologically, rather than religiously, motivated.

Consider the “Week of Student Action Against the War” hosted by the CSC in March 2003 during the buildup to the war in Iraq. Although the US Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) had stated, “people of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms in particular cases,” this was not the message promoted by the CSC. The political overtones of this “Week of Action” were strong enough that a student band pulled out of a CSC-planned concert on the grounds that they had been misinformed about the purpose of the event. The CSC website also briefly advertised a student walkout from classes: an odd protest tactic for an official arm of the University. The student walkout was pulled from the website once CSC’s director was notified of its presence, but the tendency of some elements of the CSC to embrace poorly considered tactics had been established.

The CSC’s tactics were even more ill-considered later that year, when they advertised an October 27th protest in Washington DC against the use of depleted uranium in Iraq. What the CSC did not advertise is that their attendance was only part of a much larger anti-war and anti-administration protest co-sponsored by International ANSWER. International ANSWER is not a garden-variety peace group: in fact, it is widely considered to be little more than a front for the Workers World Party (WWP). [Recommended: Tracking Down a Fifth Column Front, Edward Immler. Alternate sources: FrontPage Magazine (Right Wing), Boston IndyMedia (Left Wing/Mixed), Infoshop.org (Anarchist), International Socialist Review (Marxist)] The WWP has, among other things, publicly defended the Chinese government’s actions in the Tiananmen Square massacre, compared the Dalai Lama to Southern slave owners, and expressed fawning adulation for Kim Jong-Il’s rule in North Korea.

The problems with ANSWER are not limited to their connections to the WWP: ANSWER itself has not ruled out violence as a means of opposition to US actions in Iraq. In May 2003, ANSWER published a brochure declaring that “the anti-war movement … must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance.” Even after such gruesome events as the assassination of aid worker Margaret Hassan, countless beheadings of civilians, and the car-bombing of a high school in Samarra, ANSWER has not retracted this statement. To an outside observer, the CSC’s attendance at an ANSWER protest implies tacit support of ANSWER’s positions. The CSC’s failure – to this day – to publicly disclose the sponsors of the October protest lends further credence to such a belief. Does the CSC wish to tacitly condone the car-bombing of high schools?

In the CSC’s recent protest at Ft. Benning, their tactics moved from the morally and ethically questionable to the flatly illegal. Mr. DeRouen and Ms. Doty have stated that their arrest and upcoming trial is the “whole reason” they went to Ft. Benning. Were any of the staffers or students at the CSC who supported this trip aware of Mr. DeRouen or Ms. Doty’s reasons for going to Ft. Benning? If so, did they consider that they could easily be prosecuted under conspiracy charges? Did any member of the CSC staff make more than a token effort to establish the possible legal consequences of this protest for the University?

How was the Ft. Benning trip funded? The Flyer News stated that 70 students participated in the trip to Ft. Benning. Such a large group requires substantial logistical support – hotel reservations, transportation arrangements, and the like. Were any university funds – especially funds derived from student fees – used to support this protest? Were any of the paid staffers of the CSC “on the clock” when they organized this protest? There is no requirement that tuition only be used for programs that students like, but surely the line can be drawn at using student fees to fund violations of federal law. Civil disobedience may be a worthwhile tactic for some causes, but should the University be sponsoring these actions?

I bring up these issues in such a public forum only because I have raised them before, privately, with the CSC. Since I have discussed my concerns with them, the CSC has moved from supporting protests that are unethical to supporting protests that are illegal. Clearly, back-channel discussions of the CSC’s tactics are not productive. The time has come for the University as a whole to take a long, hard, look of the behavior of the CSC. Does a university with strong relations with the local Air Force base want to fund the arrest of its students on an Army base? Does the University want an official arm of Campus Ministry lending support to groups that see no problem with the slaughter of aid workers and civilians?

If so, then let the status quo continue. If not, then it is time for a full and public accounting of the funds, activities, and external ties of the Center for Social Concern. The students of this University should learn of the CSC’s activities from the Flyer News, not from a court transcript.

I’ve been working to research a post discussing the recent arrest of two University of Dayton Students at Ft. Benning while they were protesting the SoA/WHINSEC. The full post will be coming over the next few days, but I’ve discovered something that merits comment during my research. I’ve been re-reading some of the statements of the USCCB prior to the war in Iraq, and have stumbled across this line:

[A previous letter] raised serious questions about the moral legitimacy of any preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq.

I can understand the concerns raised by the Bishops about a preemptive use of force, or about any use of force at all. But why exactly was the word “unilateral” included in this statement? If an action is immoral, then it will never become moral, no matter how many people support it. Likewise, a moral action cannot become immoral if not enough people wish to undertake that action. “Consensus morality” doesn’t hold together any better than does “consensus science.” Have the Bishops forgotten principles of morality that are taught in second-grade religious education classes?

The other option is simply that “unilateral” is included because, alongside “preemptive” it was one of the major political charges leveled against the Bush Administration’s push to war in 2002. However, this possibility is hardly less disquieting. Why is morally irrelevant political terminology being inserted into what should be a statement wholly derived from the teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church? Did the Bishops simply decide to play politics for a change?

I am forced to hope for a third alternative, that the statement was sloppily written, and the word “unilateral” was inserted without careful consideration. However, it is a dark day indeed when my fondest hope is that the USCCB has not thought through what they are saying. One should never assume malice when incompetence will suffice for an explanation - in this case, those are my only two options.

A Catholic moral framework does not easily fit the ideologies of “right” or “left,” nor the platforms of any party. Our values are often not “politically correct.” Believers are called to be a community of conscience within the larger society and to test public life by the values of Scripture and the principles of Catholic social teaching. — USCCB Administrative Committee, Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility

This essay has been a long time in coming. I’ve posted hints of it before, but it is only in the past few months that I think I’ve gotten a good handle on what’s been bugging me about the stance of the “peace movement” within the Catholic Church. And it’s only yesterday that the entire picture crystallized for me, with a seemingly unrelated report: The French transported Yasser Arafat’s body out of the Paris hospital where he died with a full military honor guard.

(more…)

I’ve written before about the difficulties of being a pro-war Catholic, when the Church has shown itself to be anti-war almost to the point of blindness. Given that, the recent statements made by Cardinal Renato Martino don’t surprise me overly. (Particularly in light of his previous statements on the war.) To quote from Reuters:

Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department and a former papal envoy to the United Nations, told a news conference on Tuesday it would be “illusory” to think the arrest of the former Iraqi president would heal all the damage caused by a war which the Holy See opposed.

“I felt pity to see this man destroyed, (the military) looking at his teeth as if he were a cow. They could have spared us these pictures,” he said.

“Seeing him like this, a man in his tragedy, despite all the heavy blame he bears, I had a sense of compassion for him,” he said in answer to questions about Saddam’s arrest.

Here, Cardinal Martino has presented us with an excellent example of compassion for all those who are imprisoned.

He has also provided us with one of the most repulsive examples I have seen in my entire life of moral relativism.

(more…)

As a fairly right-wing Catholic, I often find myself coming into conflict with some of the social justice concepts promoted by some Catholic groups. While fighting for a living wage is laudable, I don’t support calls for a “new economic order” - based on a quick comparison between those countries that are starving (North Korea) and those that are thriving (South Korea), capitalism seems to work pretty well. Likewise, I can’t support calls to close the School of the America’s unless they are backed up with facts - such as an analysis of the percentage of all graduates involved in human rights abuses. Anecdotal evidence is worthless - if I look for organizations which have had some members involved in human rights abuses, I can make a good argument for the dissolution of the papacy. (Remember the Crusades and the Inquisition?)

As a result of this difference in opinion, I’ve been involved in more than one debate over the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. Although the war was regrettable, I think that it was both justifiable and necessary. I don’t care that Saddam might have been providing religious freedom to Christians (an argument posed by one anti-war acquaintance) — he was still murdering the Kurds, the Shias, and anyone who happened to get in his way. Weapons of mass destruction or not, the world is undoubtedly a better place now that there’s one less thuggish dictator in it.

Nevertheless, it has bothered me to no end that I could be coming from the same base of moral assumptions as those Catholics with which I so vehemently disagree. Either I was missing something fundamental in the Catechism, or someone was twisting religion to support politics. Neither of these possibilities sat well with me, and I’ve been thinking over this particular issue for a long time.

This week, I think I found part of the answer. The differences involved may be due to a difference in perspective on current events. It seems that those Catholics with which I disagree look at events and see an evil, while I look at the alternatives and see a far worse evil. This may be because I study the dark side of human history — wars, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and dictatorships — far more than is normal. Perhaps I have become desensitized to minor evils — when there are debates over illicit nuclear weapons programs in North Korea and Iran, I really can’t find the energy to care about Laci Peterson and Kobe Bryant. A murder and a rape simply don’t register very high on my scale of personal evil.

(more…)

My dissatisfaction with the “Week of Student Action Against the War” continues. I just sent off an e-mail to Paula Smith informing her of exactly why I won’t be eating at Kennedy Union on Thursday during the “Play for Peace” concert. I’ve also created a poster, suitable for hanging on most college dorm doors, outlining my position if you want to join in the boycott. I may back this up on my door with some help from the signs over at ProtestWarrior. I’ll say it once again: I am fed up with having my tuition support positions I vehemently disagree with. I am not going to stand by while my money pays for protests aimed at stopping Operation Iraqi Freedom, which appears to be the only way to free thousands of Iraqis from brutal oppression.

Am I carrying this too far? Maybe. But then I remember that the lives of people like Salam Pax are on the line, a fellow who will almost certainly die if any of Saddam’s supporters find out who he is. This isn’t about the military-industrial complex, this isn’t about oil, this is about saving the lives of Iraqi civilians and making the world a safer place. Pure and simple. I will not stand by while my tuition is used to buy a temporary measure of “peace” with Salam Pax’s blood.

UPDATE: Upon reflection, I am dropping the idea of using ProtestWarrior posters. They are a little too glib for my tastes, and seem to be an unnecessary escalation of the debate on campus. I might use them if the debate goes sharply south, but I’m not going to be the one to take it there.

Update on CSC and Student Walk-Outs

The director of the CSC has assured me that the mention of a student walk-out on the CSC’s online calendar was a mistake, and that the event has been removed from the CSC’s online calendar. Links made in my previous post on this subject will still point to the calendar, but the entry mentioned in that post has been removed. However, the “Week of Student Action Against the War” is still on. And it is still being funded with my tuition.

After a nice, relaxing, weekend, I came back to the dorm this evening to find a small slip of paper that had pushed under my door. One quick read later, and my nice relaxing weekend was right out the window. You see, this particular slip of paper was from the UD Center for Social Concern, advertising their latest event: the “Week of Student Action Against the War”. I’ll take a minute to reprint the contents of this pamphlet.

• FAST FOR PEACE: Monday: Sun-up to sun-down fast, with group dinner to follow.
• PRAY FOR PEACE: Tuesday: 24-hour vigil starting at 4:30 p.m. on Humanities Plaza.
• EDUCATE FOR PEACE: Wednesday: PAPA teach-in 11-2 in Torch Lounge by UD profs
• PLAY FOR PEACE: Thursday: Bands “The Melting Room” and “Breakaway” play in the KU Pub 8-12:30; donations to Voices in the Wilderness, to bring aid to Iraqis effected [sic] by sanctions
• RALLY FOR PEACE: Friday: Rally and discussion on Founders Field 2-4 p.m.; Small group discussions open to students of all political opinions to talk about current issues.

Questions? Center for Social Concern x9-2524

Do you notice anything about all of the above events? It seems to me that there is one common connection - with the exception of the “Prayer for Peace” and the “Rally for Peace”, none of them have anything to do with actuall y ending the war. This is my largest problem with the CSC - their activities tend to include a lot more “social concern” than they do “social action.” Consider the Week In Solidarity with the Homeless, which included a whole lot of sympathy with the homeless and no action to solve the problem. That’s right, none. No soup kitchen visits, no donation drives, no work at Habitat for Humanity, nothing. I am certain that the homeless are deeply touched that a bunch of college students have taken time out of their lives to do nothing for them.

Aside from containing little action, there is another problem with the Week of Student “Action” Against The War. Namely, this week assumes that all students on campus are against the war. This appears to be something of a pattern for anti-war protesters at the UD, despite anecdotal
and statistical evidence that this is most likely not the case. Allow me to be perfectly clear about one thing: The Center for Social Concern is not a private organization on this campus. The Center fo r Social Concern is a subsidiary of UD Campus Ministry, which is a full-fledged part of the the UD administration. My tuition is helping to pay for this week of protest.

Incidentally, this protest is not just about peaceful rallies. A brief glance at the CSC calendar reveals something not mentioned by the slip pushed under my door. Prior to the “Rally for Peac e” on Friday, the CSC has a student walk-out scheduled at 12:15 - right in the middle of normal 12:00 classes. Think this over for a second. The CSC - a wholly owned subsidiary of the University of Dayton - is encouraging students to walk out of classes at the University of Dayton. My tuition dollars are being used to attack the process of education that my tuition dollars are paying for.

I am going to make a proposal to all interested students on campus. I am not going to take the extreme approach to these protests, because while I do not agree with the CSC’s views, I am not about to spit on them. However, I think it is high time that those of on campus who disagree with the CSC held our own week: A Week of Student Support for the War in Iraq. Those of us supporting the war do not like violence, but we like the war more than the alternative, which is an Iraqi regime led by Saddam Hussein and armed with WMDs. Here’s a rough and tentative schedule:

• WRITE FOR WAR: Monday: Write letters to the UD administration and the CSC asking an explanation for why student tuition is being used to encourage a student walk-out.
• PRAY FOR WAR: Tuesday: Pray for the safety of our troops, for Iraqi civilians, and for Iraqi conscripts. Actually, this will be going on all week.
• EDUCATE FOR WAR: Wednesday: Examine the causes of the war in Iraq, such as Saddam’s unspeakably brutal treatment of his own people and his blatant disregard for UN resolutions. Visit Ready.gov and prepare for the possibility of terrorist attacks. Review your first aid skills.
• BOYCOTT FOR WAR: Thursday: Resolve never to buy anything from “The Melting Room” or “Breakaway”. In fact, eat anywhere beside the KU dining hall that evening. Let’s make sure that KU is deserted when the “Play for Peace” bands take the state.
• STAY FOR WAR: Friday: Avoid the student rally. Encourage other students to stay in class at 12:15, in recognition of the value of our education. If all else fails, suggest that faculty schedule quizzes at 12:20.

For those of you who are wondering about my earlier criticism of CSC for not taking action in their “Week of Action”, bear something in mind as you read this list. I am not claiming that this week will be about taking action for the war in Iraq - I am intending to support the war in Iraq by saying, “Yes, this war is in my name.” I have no problem with those who oppose the war. I have a problem with those who oppose the war, use their unique position within the administration to elevate their views, make it appear as though the entire campus opposes the war, and do all of the above with my tuition. I will not stand idly by while the CSC does all of the above.

This always applies, but since I have probably just stepped into a large minefield, I should repeat it: The opinions expressed in this blog are mine and mine alone. In no way are these opinions the official stance of the University of Dayton - they simply provide hosting to all students here. If you have an issue with any of the above, don’t contact the webmaster. E-mail me instead. I welcome comments from any viewpoint, but those with particularly atrocious spelling or ad-hominem attacks will be summarily deleted. Just as it is my website, it is my e-mail account.