The Idealistic ignorance of the liberal ideology has never been more offensive to me than it was on the eve of the anniversary of September 11. It was on this date that I found myself in attendance at a University "teach-in" hosted by Student Council that was purported to have been a discussion of the terrorist attacks last fall.
I attended the event operating under the assumption that it, like the others scheduled for the days surrounding the anniversary, would be to some degree a session of reflection, continued healing and an analysis of the progress of the nation's continued perseverancein the face of adversity. My presence at the teach-in was simply an affirmation of my sensitivity to and support for America and her endeavors to secure freedom in the upcoming year. One can only imagine the remorse which would replace my enthusiasm for the program when I was to discover the radically left-wing political nature of the event, a reality which would provide for what I found an offensive display of counter-patriotic fervor on the behalf of the speakers.
Instantly caught off-guard by the radically activist nature of the professors' speeches, I felt that both my ideology and my patriotic zeal were under a sort of verbal assault by many of the words which dripped so contemptuously from thespeakers' mouths. Characterized by a truly sarcastic critique of American foreign policy in the hands of the Bush administration, the "teaching" that was done was little more than a declaration by elements of the extreme left wing of their ideological disdain for the harsh reality of the need for realism in American foreign policy.
Many of the orators argued that America was largely to blame for its standing in the Middle East (which therefore lended itself to the inference that America was partially to blame for September 11), as it has supported a great many corrupt and evil autocratic regimes in the region for decades. No matter that there are plenty of other instances in our nation's history in which her statesmen have been willing to cooperate with totalitarianism in order to respond to a higher calling (i.e. an alliance with Stalin and Mao Zedong to fight the Nazis).
These educators would have us believe America's artful use of power politics, specifically in the Middle East, which played a major role in vanquishing the evils of the Soviet empire, was in fact so great a vice that America ought to hang its head in shame and surrender with apology to those forces of Middle Eastern culture which helped to breed al Qaeda. After all, what were we thinking when we built our Twin Towers in the way of their hijacked airplanes, or unfairly taunted them with the menacing specter of the Pentagon? One could almost be lead to conclude that these ideologues would assert America had this coming!
Disappointingly little was uttered the entire evening in support of American efforts in Afghanistan, in dismantling al Qaeda, or even for the nation's ability to preserve itself in the face of epic devastation. Obviously these subscribers to the school of one-world order have been little impressed by the newfound resolve and passions discovered to be present in the American spirit, and have instead been alarmed by our nation's harsh treatment of the poor, misunderstood vermin that crawl around in their underground bunkers and plot the demise of the free world.
In concluding their political diatribe, the speakers at the "teach-in" responded to questions from the audience. I was further disgusted by the nature of the gathering when the Student Council member who had hosted the event, Daniel Haspel, came forth with a question of his own. He requested that the members of the panel inform the audience as to how they might help combat the Bush administration's efforts to raise support for a possible war with Iraq.
The Council member's query, the seeming culmination of this left-wing love fest, lends itself to question the objectivity of the event. One may conclude that this program, operating under the guise of a warm-hearted discussion of the events after September 11, was tainted in that it could be construed as a mere form of liberal propaganda orchestrated by certain radical left-leaning elements serving within the student government. I was dismayed that not a single contradictory point of view was provided in the form of a lecture, and further astounded by the unabashed support for the professors' liberal agenda that the representative from student government had shown.
Clearly there exists a scarcity of tact with anyone who would be so insensitive to the painful memory of the terrorist attacks as to exploit its anniversary for political gain.
No one is arguing that anyone who participated in the "teach-in" ought to be censored or silenced for their opinion or even for their public declaration of it, for they are constitutionally entitled to these things by the very government they malign so greatly. Simply, I would argue that it is the obligation of students to take the time to evaluate the character of those they support in so powerful a position, and to demand a certain degree of balance and sensitivity in their leadership.
(Josh Hess is a first-year College student.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
