Port 80

The latest dispatch from the Flyer News is most disheartening. Apparently, a vocally anti-war graduate student found his door vandalized after he spent a weekend off-campus working with the homeless:

… Standing with my homelessness handouts and sleeping bag at my door I read a note that said, “we protect your ass and my buddies die and all you can be is an ungreatful [sic] bi*** f*** you! U.S.M.C. cause you will never know US Marine CORPS!!!”

In addition, other derogatory words were written across my door covering my St. Francis prayer for peace, Safe Place sign, and an image of Iraqi children who have lost arms and legs from bombings. The text on this image was rendered to contrast the original message.

I could nitpick other elements of the article, but I’m not going to. Frankly, dissecting the author’s reasoning serves no possible purpose: If nothing else, the author’s entirely justifiable anger means that this piece will not be a paragon of clear and rational argument. Instead, I’m only going to say two things.

First, although the author suggests that the perpetrators may have been members of the UD ROTC program, I very much doubt that this is the case. I have known a number of ROTC students and a few ROTC instructors, and all have struck me as being disciplined and professional. Furthermore, I very much doubt that members of an Army ROTC program would be writing the praises of the Marine Corps on the door of a graduate student. In fact, it would greatly surprise me if the perpetrators of this act were members of the military at all.

Secondly, to whoever did this: Although I have been a vocal critic of the stance of UD Campus Ministry on the war in Iraq, don’t even think of trying to cite anything I’ve written in some halfhearted defense of your actions. My goal in criticizing Campus Ministry has been to increase debate - the goal of your actions was to stifle it. Those who resort to intimidation to win an argument have had many names throughout history. In Germany, they were called the Sturm Abteilung, or SA, or simply the brownshirts. In Iraq, they now being called Al-Tawhid wal Jihad. Presumably, you would consider yourselves allies of democracy. Consider that you are adopting the tactics of its bitterest enemies.

Why am I so focused on this point? There are two reasons. First of all, the last incident of door vandalism on this campus led to the establishment of an anti-bias program at UD. This incident, as public as it now is, is sure to spark some form of official reaction and quite a bit of unofficial ire.

This brings me to my other reason: I am the most recent, most visible, and most vocal critic of UD Campus Ministry at the moment. (Which is a somewhat surprising thing given the traffic, or lack thereof, that this site gets.) If someone should decide to make this act of vandalism worse with an intemperate response, I am the low-hanging fruit on the tree. Let me say, therefore, that my ire at being tied to this incident by supporters of Campus Ministry will hardly be less than my ire at being cited by the vandals. My opinions have been blatantly misrepresented before by supporters of Campus Ministry who did not take the trouble to respond to my central arguments, read my work correctly, quote me accurately, or represent their status as authors honestly. I did not respond to this misrepresentation because I did not feel it was necessary. However, I will forcefully respond to any attempts to tie my criticism to the actions of these thugs. They are no compatriots of mine. My arguments derive from the classical desire for rational debate, while their actions stem from a different historical inspiration.

All opposition must be stamped into the ground. — Slogan of the Sturm Abteilung

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

…if in the research for a previous post, you search the Flyer News website for articles mentioning your name, and find an old editorial you wrote last year. Nothing unusual about that, right?

Unless, of course, you have to read the editorial a couple of times not only to remember what you were writing about, but to remind yourself that you actually wrote it.

In the absence of other evidence, I’m blaming the pernicious effects of secondhand Beast. The University of Dayton is to cheap beer consumption what South Carolina diners are to tobacco use.

See, the third can of Beast is the best, because by then you can’t taste it. — a UD student on the virtues of UD’s designated cheap beer

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

Before I begin this post, I’m going to say up front that it discusses race relations. (Hence the title.) This is by nature a difficult discussion that can make a person a lot of enemies very quickly, so I will lay all my cards on the table: I am a Caucasian. The racial incidents occurring at my college have been perpetrated by Caucasians against African-Americans. I find these incidents abhorrent and despicable in the extreme. However, I feel that the University’s reaction to these events must be open to discussion. Righteous anger has caused many people to do wholly unrighteous things, and I do not want to see the University step down that path.

At my school, the University of Dayton, we’ve been having a decent-sized flap over race relations. The key incident that sparked the current conflagration was the circulation of racist flyers through Marycrest residence halls in October. Although that incident itself hasn’t been that heavily covered, a lot of general discussion about the issue has been going on in the campus. (Diversity Group Ups Awareness, Intolerance Editorial, Racial Intolerance Concerns Community)

The latest item in the fight against racism is the new website that has been launched at the University of Dayton to let students report incidents of racism or intolerance. However, I fear that this website marks the beginning of the pendulum reversing its swing: The University may be crossing the line to stop any appearance of racism. What really worries me is this quote on the “Definitions” page of the “Stop Hate” website:

Hate Crime

A hate crime is a criminal offense committed against persons, property or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by an offender’s bias against an individual’s or a group’s race, religion, ethnic/national origin, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation. (International Association of Chiefs of Police)

The page then goes on to separate hate crimes from “bias-related conduct” or “Hate Incidents,” which differ from hate crimes because “they are not illegal.” The only problem with this definition of a “hate crime” is that the University of Dayton is located in Ohio, and that the Ohio Revised Code does not, anywhere, define a hate crime. In short, the term “hate crime” has no meaning in the criminal justice system in Ohio. It is important to note that Ohio does have a related law. This is the prohibition against “Ethnic intimidation,” which is defined in ORC § 2927.12:

(A) No person shall violate section 2903.21, 2903.22, 2909.06, or 2909.07, or division (A)(3), (4), or (5) of section 2917.21 of the Revised Code by reason of the race, color, religion, or national origin of another person or group of persons.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of ethnic intimidation. Ethnic intimidation is an offense of the next higher degree than the offense the commission of which is a necessary element of ethnic intimidation.

For reference, ORC § 2903.21 defines aggravated menacing, ORC § 2903.22 defines menacing, ORC § 2909.06 defines criminal damaging or endangering, ORC § 2909.07 defines criminal mischief, and ORC § 2917.21, divisions (A)(3), (4), and (5) covers threatening telephone calls. In other words, the ethnic intimidation law does not cover crimes against “society,” it does not cover a great number of crimes against persons or property, and it does not cover any crimes based on “gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation.”

There are also several sections of federal law that deal with hate crimes. The most notable for our purposes is Section 280003 of the mammoth Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This section defines a hate crime as follows:

(a) DEFINITION- In this section, “hate crime” means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.

This is certainly closer to the UD statement - but again, there’s no mention of age, or of crimes against “society.” This definition is also a bit tighter. While the UD definition requires that the offense be motivated “in whole or in part” by bias, this definition requires that a victim be “intentionally select[ed]” based on bias, limiting the crimes it applies to somewhat more. Furthermore, this is a federal definition, and unless a defendant is prosecuted in a federal court, I do not believe that it applies. (I am not entirely certain on this point, however. If you can confirm or deny, leave a comment.)

Now, before my inbox turns into a river of flame, let’s make one thing perfectly clear: I do not support any of the activities which the “Stop Hate” webpage is condemning. However, when officials with control of coercive force (such as the UD police department) stop looking at “what the law really says” and start reading “what I would like the law to say,” I start getting worried. Perhaps the definitions page is simply a bit muddled — after all, the “Hate Crimes” definition refers to acts that are illegal in and of themselves, beyond their possible motivations. However, from where I sit, it sure looks like UD has decided to “simplify” the law —- and, in the process, accidentally distort its meaning.

Now, this is all well and good. But here’s the real question: How does one best approach the UD administration to inform them of this problem in the midst of a campus-wide crusade against racism? If you have a good idea, leave it in the comments or e-mail me — I’m looking for suggestions.

Update

I erred in my previous iteration of this post, and failed to cite the federal hate crimes statute. The appropriate references and commentary have been added inline to this post. (And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why a man who defends himself in court has a fool for a client. The law is complex — which is why I worry when it is simplified.)

The UD website also links to the University of Miami’s “No Hate” website, which lays out a refreshingly complete definition of a hate crime. It’s this sort of precise definition that I would like to see on UD’s “Stop Hate” page. Incidentally, their version is close in a hybrid in wording between UD’s definition and the definition in the United States Code. However, I’ve quoted entirely enough law in this post - you can read it yourself if you’re interested.

Another update: Just to make my position perfectly clear on this subject, I have added the disclaimer at the beginning of this post.

Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law, but because it is an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to refute him. — John Selden

Before I begin this post, I’m going to say up front that it discusses race relations. (Hence the title.) This is by nature a difficult discussion that can make a person a lot of enemies very quickly, so I will lay all my cards on the table: I am a Caucasian. The racial incidents occurring at my college have been perpetrated by Caucasians against African-Americans. I find these incidents abhorrent and despicable in the extreme. However, I feel that the University’s reaction to these events must be open to discussion. Righteous anger has caused many people to do wholly unrighteous things, and I do not want to see the University step down that path.

At my school, the University of Dayton, we’ve been having a decent-sized flap over race relations. The key incident that sparked the current conflagration was the circulation of racist flyers through Marycrest residence halls in October. Although that incident itself hasn’t been that heavily covered, a lot of general discussion about the issue has been going on in the campus. (Diversity Group Ups Awareness, Intolerance Editorial, Racial Intolerance Concerns Community)

The latest item in the fight against racism is the new website that has been launched at the University of Dayton to let students report incidents of racism or intolerance. However, I fear that this website marks the beginning of the pendulum reversing its swing: The University may be crossing the line to stop any appearance of racism. What really worries me is this quote on the “Definitions” page of the “Stop Hate” website:

(more…)

I’m back at the University of Dayton for another school year, and I’m gradually getting used to the mass of incongruities that is college. I think a recent bookstore purchase summed it up well for me: On top of a $130 textbook (with no used copies available), some reseller had taken the care to place a small gold sticker: Free CD-ROM inside!

If this isn’t irony, I don’t know what is.

I haven’t abandoned the blog, and I have several posts in the works. However, as a resident of Dayton, I thought that I should at least post a few quick snippets on Inventing Flight while I’m working on more involved posts.

Opening

UFOs: I know that Inventing Flight is trying to be as inclusive as possible, hence the use of breakdancing in the opening ceremony. But I really wouldn’t have picked the Raelians as consultants for depicting the future of flight.

Somber: I’m not a doctor, but it sure looked like Neil Armstrong was suffering from Parkinson’s disease during the opening ceremony. It is entirely possible that in not too long a time, we will no longer have the lunar astronauts among us. Does it disturb anyone else that human interplanetary exploration may soon be an experience only remembered in books and films? If and when we go back, what will we have to relearn along the way?

Bush’s Speech

Numbers: I was lucky to be one of the twenty-five thousand people who got tickets to see Bush speak at Wright-Patterson AFB. I saw exactly five protestors outside the gates. And I’m counting the two-year olds in strollers.

Introductions: One of the worst possible introductions was invented for a congressman this morning: “This man has brought a lot to us here at Wright-Patterson. In other states, we call this ‘pork’, but in Ohio, we call this ‘economic stimulus.’ Please welcome …” And so ends the career of a promising master of ceremonies.

Security: Without going into detail, let me just say that when the Secret Service decides to secure a facility from outside threats, they do not joke around. Thus, I very much suspect that the low-and-slow Air Force One flyover of the crowd was done over the objections of more than one security agent.

Image: If you decide to drive across the grass to get ahead in line, partially block off paths that are being used by ambulances, and then expect other drivers to let you back into traffic, you really shouldn’t do it in a black Chevy Blazer with a WHIO-1290 logo on the side door. That’s just asking for trouble.

Miscellaneous

France: The Dayton Airshow this year is set to be the largest in the world. This must really peeve the French: Paris has been beaten out by a city which isn’t even large enough to have a major league baseball, basketball, football, or soccer franchise.

CityFolk: Rosie Ledet and the Zydeco Playboys rock. ‘Nuff said.