We're in the news! Of course I created the site months before we knew Powell was coming, but other than that I'm pretty happy with the story. I hope this will get more people interested in the site.
'I think we could have found someone better to reflect Willamette University's values,' said Russell Bither-Terry, a 2002 politics graduate and Truman scholar who now attends the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 'I think, morally and ethically, using him is setting a bad example.'
Bither-Terry and some others on the Salem campus say Powell's involvement in the Bush administration's Iraq-war strategy doesn't mesh with Willamette's Methodist roots and the ethical and spiritual dimensions of education.
Bither-Terry established a Web site, named after Willamette University's motto, www.notuntoourselvesalone areweborn.org, to discuss Powell's visit.
4 Comments:
You do not believe Powell should be on campus because you do not support the war in Iraq. You believe that we went to war because of WMS. You forget that that was not the only reason. Saddam and his gang had defied 17 other United Nations resolution and was thumbing his nose at the rest of the world.
Dear anonymous,
I'm fine with Powell speaking on campus. What I oppose is having him be the public face of Willamette in its fund-raising campaign.
Russel-
I think you are splitting hairs when you argue that you don't mind Powell speaking at Willamette but you oppose him "being a public face of Willamette in its fund-raising campaign.". I agree with anonymous (9:56AM) that you really oppose Powell because you do not support the war in Iraq.
In a personal communication to me you stated that you felt Mr. Powell's participation in the fundraising was incompatible with 3 important traditions at Willamette.
1. Intellectual honesty and the pursuit of truth.
2.Willamette's Methodist tradition
3.The motto.. "Not unto Ourselves Alone we are Born.
Let's analyse your statement.
1.I find Colin Powell to be a man of impeccable honesty. I trust his word. If I may read between the lines, you are implying that the former Secretary of State conspired with the President to mislead the the nation into war. I don't believe he did. WMD was only one portion of the whole picture. He believed the same intelligence information that Senators Clinton, Biden and Kerry reviewed and voted on.
2. Willamette's Methodist tradition?? When I went to Willamette in the early 70s, the University hardly had a relationship with the Methodist Church. Today, I believe the relationship is DOA. But even if Willamette did have strong ties with the Methodist Church, how is Colin Powell incompatible with the Methodist Church? I see him as a man who sincerely seeks for truth and justice.
3.Colin Powell is incompatible with our motto? I interpret that motto as meaning we should serve others. Colin Powell has served this nation his entire adult life. A career Soldier, Viet Nam Veteran , Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State, he has given of himself to the service of others.
So what is your point? You disagree with the war in Iraq. You believe that President Bush and his cabinet deliberately misled the nation into war.( a subject of another debate another time) Colin Powell thus should not be allowed to help President Pelton fundraise?? Hello?
Comments??
Jay Jamieson, M.D. Class of 1975
Dr. Jamieson,
I’m not splitting hairs. There's a key difference between having someone speak on campus and asking them to represent the university. The purpose of having people speak on campus is to expose students and other members of the community to a variety of perspectives in furthering their intellectual development. The range of speakers should be as open as possible and I would oppose trying to silence speakers because of their views (I realize that there sadly far too many leftists who do not adhere to this principle). For example, if the College Republicans received ASWU funds to bring David Horowitz to campus I would oppose efforts to have him uninvited, shout him down during his speech, etc.
Having Powell represent Willamette is another matter. It sends the message that he is an example of what the university stands for and our aspirations for our graduates. You’re clearly fine with that. Others of us aren’t and that’s why we’re speaking out.
It’s no secret that my opposition to the war in Iraq is key to why I oppose Powell’s role in the campaign. I oppose Powell representing because I oppose the war AND having him as the public face of Willamette expresses approval of his role in getting us into the war AND because I feel this is incompatible with the values I believe Willamette ought to uphold.
We disagree on the war. We disagree on Powell. We disagree on Willamette’s values. A group of us are organizing to help shape Willamette into the kind of place we think it ought to be. You’re of course free, even encouraged, to organize like-minded people in support of your vision of what Willamette should be. The interplay, debates, and compromises between conflicting groups is the essence of democratic politics.
My three points were never meant to be complete arguments, hence the posts expanding upon them, one yesterday and, hopefully, one today and one tomorrow.
Regarding intellectual honesty, like many people in the U.S., I feel the administration was dishonest in making the pitch for war. I don’t know if Powell was cognizant of that or “merely” allowed himself, and his reputation, to be used to sell the war. If you want to discuss intellectual honesty further we can do so in the comments for Part 1.
Russell (2 l’s)
Post a Comment
<< Home