LAST WEDNESDAY, the first day of class, many professors began discussing their syllabi by remarking that it is under revision because they were unaware until very recently that class would be cancelled for Martin Luther King Day. Most students too were surprised, albeit very pleasantly, to learn that Monday classes were suspended three days into the spring semester.
It is no wonder that the University grants so few holidays during the school year. Canceling classes on Yom Kippur would give cause to suspend classes on Eid or Good Friday since privileging one religious holiday over another might cause consternation among the respective groups. I've never been able to understand, however, why students and professors aren't given federal holidays off such as Labor Day and Veteran's Day. Clearly then, the University meant to send a special and positive message by privileging MLK Day in this way. And yet, it seemed that the University aimed only to feel good about itself and appease constituent groups.
This thought irked me, of course, but I quickly brushed it aside and set about deciding what I might do on my day off. Linked in the University's daily e-mail "Headline News," I found that several groups were cosponsoring an event to honor Dr. King.
In an effort to celebrate MLK Day, the Carter G. Woodson Institute, the Office of African American Affairs, the University Library Multicultural Issues Committee, The Center for the Study of Race and Law, and the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity cosponsored an event "Chiefly About War Matters" to celebrate Dr. King's legacy. The event focused on Dr. King's opposition to the Vietnam War and his larger social gospel vision. Attendees listened to Dr. King's speech, "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam," and heard from five panelists who offered various comments on the theme of dissent from war.
Quickly, and quite predictably, the speakers turned from Dr. King's position on the Vietnam War to their own opinions on the Iraq War. This line of ideological homogeneity culminated with the final panelist presenting the audience with a 10 minute digression on President Bush's war crimes and the conspiracies of American intelligence. Robert Fatton, a University professor of politics, noted that the Iraq war falls in line with "an old pattern of aggressive strikes and regime changes." He went on to accuse Bush's top policy makers, such as Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, of planning the "Iraq quagmire" 10 years ago when they served in various other capacities in George H.W. Bush's administration. All this and more was greeted with plenty of head nods and applause.
I personally agreed with many of the panelists' observations, especially on the inability of America to remake the world in its democratic image. I thought it intellectually dishonest, however, to proffer homogenous opinions on the war in Iraq, a highly contestable issue, with the safe and unquestionable name of Dr. King shielding the panelists from criticism.
For good reason the celebration of Martin Luther King is an act above reproach. Although Dr. King is most commonly remembered as a civil rights leader, the full breadth of his work certainly deserves critical examination. Yet, it seemed contrived to bring together a group of panelists, all of whom oppose the war in Iraq, to praise King's opposition to the Vietnam War..
Just imagine if on Veteran's Day classes were cancelled and University programming brought together a group of panelists to discuss Franklin Roosevelt's views on the Second World War and then went on to moralize about our present day duties with direct comparisons of Nazi fascism and Islamic radicalism. I can only imagine the uproar. On the off chance that such a panel would ever be supported by University committees and departments, there would certainly be cause for ideological and political debate among panelists and the audience.
This disappointing commemoration of Dr. King is just politics as usual at the University: By using an innocuous and politically correct veneer, professors and administrators manage to sway students on politically-charged subjects that deserve debate. Instead, what they get is an anti-intellectual and stifling discussion among the like-minded and their sheep.
Christa Byker is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at cbyker@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe 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 | 5 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 | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
