In Social Movements today we discussed social movements on campuses and free speech. Two interesting conversations happened:
My problem arises with this because I feel rather than being brainwashed or bombarded, this generation would be better served to all be taught the exact same thing, whether conservative, moderate or liberal: learning how to learn. If the generation were to be taught how to learn, each would take the information presented and form their own view of the issue. Perhaps it is my Baptist upbringing which brings this out most in my own life. One of the pillars of faith as a Baptist, also one that many seem to have forgotten in shaping the new Southern Baptist Convention, is the “priesthood of all believers” where each person is able to communicate directly to God and does not have to be held accountable to any other person.
The past few years as I started looking into seminaries, I have noticed that many seem to teach and preach with an agenda. I have quickly crossed each one of those institutions off my list. A few months ago I met a pastor from Texas who told me about the seminary he attended. His favorite aspect of the seminary was that he learned how to learn, was given material to learn from and was not spoon-fed his education. I’m looking forward to that.
As this university continues to examine where it’s heading in terms of liberalist vs. conservativist agendas, I hope the committees and Board will recognize that an emphasis should be placed on allowing people to learn how to learn, not spoon-feeding. Those days are behind (most of) us and it’s time for us to shape our own worldview. Presenting an unbiased approach towards learning will lessen the divide, I feel, between each side. If a conservative is attempting to force his/her agenda, sides with either strongly agree or be adamantly opposed. Same for a liberal and his/her agenda. If each student is allowed to make his/her own decision based on their experiences, readings and lifestyle, they will experience an eb and flow of education as they read material they agree with, disagree with and lessens the impact of harsh disagreements between the liberal, moderate and conservative.
Washington Post? Sure, Michael Jackson’s endless trial does not effect the general public. But bringing up the Atlanta courthouse shooting as an example of bad media is just wrong. For nearly 24 hours after his jailbreak, Brian Nichols eluded police and law enforcement officials. In today’s world, he could have gone nearly anywhere in the country in 24 hours—but particularly anywhere on the East Coast. Granted he didn’t even leave Atlanta, his escape posed a security threat to much of the country. Why should that not be of national news interest? In the days that followed, what had been a national security threat should certainly have been detailed further in the news. A security breach in a booming metropolis could surely be repeated elsewhere. I don’t understand why people decided to use that case as an example of bad news. Granted there is a lot of bad news, that’s not one of them.
The subject of the war in Iraq is intriguing for me because of personal relationships I have connecting my experiences to Iraq. While I’ve never been there, I have a good friend who was forced to leave Iraq about 5 years ago, fleeing with his family from Saddam Hussein’s regime, taking his life into his hands as they fled in the night. I talked with Sam just after our class discussion and he said the news has been so distressing to him that he quit watching it.
Just a few weeks ago, a friend of mine from middle school was killed in Iraq (http://homepage.mac.com/joseph.tesauro/EYEWITNESS_NEWS/FileSharing13.html [Link Edited]. His unit was fighting a known terrorist cell and the leader of the cell was also killed in that fight. Karl was doing what he felt called to do, helping people he didn’t even know.
Another friend of mine is currently serving as a Chaplain to a National Guard unit, stationed at the moment in Iraq. Here’s what Ben said: “soldiers do seem to get excited about what they are doing here as they get out and meet people. Yea, there are all the political stuff back in the states, but it doesn’t really come through as much here. Here the bottom line is we are here with a poor people who have been oppressed, and they are seeking to rebuild a country while a few bad apples try to ruin things. It is exciting to be a part of something good, and that is how many soldiers begin to look at it, political stuff aside.”
While Ben’s stories and Sam’s life seem to conflict with each other, I’m sure that if those two were to talk about the situation, Sam’s mind would be put at ease. Right now all he’s heard are stories of despair and no hope. The media has portrayed a side to the war that silences whatever else is taking place, like the stories of hope that Ben has told, stories of rebuilding schools that UR grad Scott Irwin has told. I’m not a big fan of going over and killing people, and perhaps the wrong action was taken in starting the war. But hearing the true stories, not what the media tells us, gives a brighter picture. If more people heard these stories, instead of story after story of soldiers and innocent Iraqis being killed, would there be a different view on the war? a lot of people are taking action against a war that they’ve only heard about through the media—how can we possibly know what we’re moving for if the media’s portrayal is so skewed? Hopefully it will end soon and there won’t be any question about it.
As for these soldiers fighting for a victory that will never be theirs, I think that too is a bleak portrayal of the situation. Whether or not they ever put a name to a face, the soldiers are meeting the people of Iraq who are benefiting from this military action and are seeing the full effect of what they’re doing. That sure seems like the reward is becoming partly theirs as a piece of themselves connects with the people of Iraq.