I'm so ashamed of my school right now. The student senate has voted not to support even the idea of honoring WWII Congressional Medal of Honor winner Gregory "Pappy" Boyington because we shouldn't honor people who kill. Apparently, even if those people killed were literally fascists who were attempting actual global imperialism.
The award for the Most Asinine Hippy Statement of the Month goes to "Senator" Jill Edwards, representing the Honors Croquet League, who said that she didn't think "a member of the Marine Corps was an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce." This profoundly disrespectful statement for military people in general is disgusting. Are we really going to go back to spitting on the troops? Does Miss Edwards really think the world would be a better place had we not had US Marines in WWII? Certainly this goes beyond disagreement about the Iraq War.
The University itself brags about the distinguished Marine on their official alumni page. I wonder how proud the author of that article is about his alma mater now. More importantly, I wonder how much money they'll be willing to give to the school in the future. I hope President Emmert is taking notice.
Of course, this whole hoopla may wind up helping the school recognize COL Boyington. I wouldn't have known about the effort. If I find a way to donate to the effort, I'll post it here.
Read the full minutes of the Student Senate session here. Contact Miss Edwards here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
She's got at least one more E-mail from the President of the Military Law Association inviting her to join us this Thursday at the Military Law Association/Black Law Student Association's TGIT, where we'll be drinking beer, eating crawfish, and discussing the military's role in domestic disaster response a la Katrina. I hope she comes, and meets actual military people from UW, since it's apparent she hasn't actually ever gotten to know any of us. I certainly would like to meet her.
Cato, in what context could she say those things and have them not be terribly offensive, anti-Military, and laughably historically ignorant? I'm sure she's a very nice person, but her point of view on this, while she's entitled to it, is simply indefensible. And her defense of "it's taken out of context" strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. Is she embarassed that UW produces US Marines or not? If it were up to her, would she kick ROTC off of campus? Something tells me she would.
If you tell racist jokes in a public forum, you SHOULD get hundreds of E-mails and letters from people telling you that you're being an ass. Likewise, when you use a student fee sponsored event to reinforce the perception of military officers as crazed and happy killers of babies who wish for war without end instead of the defenders of freedom that they are, you should be called on it. Her comments were mean spirited (ignorant at best) in whatever context they possibly could be taken, and I don't mind that she got exposed.
The fact that she feels free to spew such ahistorical nonsense as an officer in a public forum and NOT be called on it is the problem. The fact that you can be educated enough to represent other students in a major University student body and yet be so ignorant of basic American history and the context in which it took place is the problem. And the fact that the IDEA of the memorial got voted down, because Miss Edwards' view was a MAJORITY one - THAT is the problem. And perhaps the idea that the student senate spends time passing irrelevant resolutions on the student fee dime is the problem - but then I've been pretty skeptical of student government since the promised pop machines in the Junior High cafeteria never materialized.
How many other times at other Student Senate meetings have such ridiculous statements been bandied about unchallenged? I will hazard to guess that this is hardly the first time, or even the most egregious comments made on the floor of the student senate, and were in fact majority opinions.
Miss Edwards embarassed her school in front of the entire nation because she engaged her mouth before she engaged her brain. Her comments have the potential to seriously impact almuni dollars the University needs. That's a risk you take for the privilege of having the resume bullet of "Student Senator". I will not appologize for holding her accountable.
Cato, I encourage you to pass along our invitation to her to the law school on Thursday for some free eats, and to direct her to this blog to respond and explain her "context" if she so wishes. I would honestly very much like to hear what she has to say about it.
Steve, there's plenty of crazies and silly-billies out there who say dumb things without consequence. The problem here is that Miss Edwards' view was shared by a MAJORITY of the students who are self proclaimed representatives of the student body. She's taking the heat because she said the dumbest things the loudest - but you're right. All 41 who voted against are equally to blame.
Welcome, Steve - I'm glad you're here to stir things up!
Cato,
Those are fairly weak qualifications at best. First, I DON'T think that pacifism is legitimate. At all. A person who stands by and watches his nation and his freedom fall under attack and does nothing should be ashamed to look at himself in the mirror. (Did we learn nothing from Spider-Man?) And since her ability to BE a pacificst is derived entirely from OTHER people willing to fight for her, it's also manifestly selfish. I wouldn't use language so harsh as Publius', but I can't disagree with his characterizations of her opinion. She has a right to have a point of view - not a right to have it validated as legitimate when it's not. That slavery should be returned is a reasonable view for a racist to have - that doesn't mean we shouldn't condemn that opinion.
Memorials to alumni LITTER this campus. Buildings are named after them. Rooms within the buildings are named after them. Scholarship funds are named for them. Gardens are named for them. Athletic fields are named after them. And many alumni far, far, far, far less worthy (Jim McDermott) are lionized when they visit by students and faculty alike.
And unless her comments were placed in the minutes out of whole cloth, that is NOT what she said. She said that A (read: any) member of the Marine Corps was "not an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce." It did NOT say, "I'm glad UW produces Marines, but think other people are more worthy," in fact, she said just the opposite. And when given the opportunity to clarify, she gave the old canard about wanting to "get people to think".
At the very least she could be consistent. If she is a pacifist, then the only consistent point of view is to think derisively about those who chose to take up arms kill bad guys for any reason whatever.
But it's beyond her. Her sentiments are the feeling of the majority of the official representative organ of the student body. And that's why they all (not just Miss Edwards) deserve our condemnation and derision.
Cato, that's our interpretation as well. And that sentiment is unacceptable, offensive, and just flat wrong.
He didn't earn distinction for "killing people," he earned it because he was willing to risk being shot at and killed to prevent fascists from extending their control over the world. To that end, because of the fanatascism of the enemy, he had no choice but to kill them. Even taking your context, which I think is reasonable, Miss Edwards doesn't understand this basic and simple distinction, and because of her officially and publicly vocalized and majority supported position making CLEAR she doesn't understand it, then she deserves our derision.
Post a Comment