 |
|
     |
|
|
Berkeley USA It’s a good thing I was sitting down when I read “The times they are a-changin’” in the December issue. I was in NROTC during the late 1960s, and one of our duties was to man a recruiting table in Sproul Plaza at noon. I cannot begin to enumerate the number of times we were vilified, yelled at, and criticized for doing what we felt we had a right to do. Berkeley should be a place where any student is able to express any point of view, without the fear of intimidation or political “correctness.” Thank you, Berkeley USA, for being there. Peter Sherry ’68 San Francisco Please express my strongest possible thanks to Daniel Hernandez for his article, “The times they are a-changin’.” He expressed what so many Cal students and alums know—that while the radical liberals may scream the loudest, they definitely do not reflect the views or opinions of the majority of Cal’s student population. As a political consultant, I have to thank Cal for driving me into my chosen profession. I was so thoroughly disgusted by the radical, ill-conceived activism I saw on campus during my four years in Berkeley that I have committed myself to fighting the radical elements of our society by helping elect responsible and reasonable public servants. Matthew Klink ’89 Studio City I have been contemplating this letter for months—ever since I read the weak response Daniel Hernandez made to the outrageous actions of “Black Out” in destroying the press run of the Daily Californian containing David Horowitz’s ad against reparations (“The ad, the apology, and the aftermath,” June 2001). Then September 11 occurred, and I realized for the first time that the origin of my lack of patriotism was Berkeley. Where else did I learn to be ashamed of being an American? Where else did I learn that flying the flag was the ultimate in bad taste? Where else did I learn to sneer at those who expressed love for their country? And where else could I have learned everything bad about my country while learning very little that was good? So it became clear to me that I had been programmed by Berkeley and by its lack of free speech, of which the reaction to Horowitz was but a part. Berkeley believes itself superior to America and disdains it. Therefore, anyone criticizing our country is automatically right, and anyone who questions that is either an idiot or unenlightened. As a result, I have decided to end my relationship with the University and have canceled my membership in the Alumni Association. I will make no further contributions to the University until I see a systematic change in its nature, and that will not occur until many of the tenured professors who taught me to hate my country either die, retire, or are forced out. Hugh Thomson ’67 Los Gatos Peace and conflict While Americans want peace, I have a number of disagreements with the approach to achieving that very basic human desire outlined in the Q&A with Michael Nagler (December). I will limit myself to two huge problems. The first is his suggestion that America is at fault for the suffering of other people. To blame America for bombing the Iraqi water supply as the reason that Saddam Hussein won’t use his wealth to feed the hungry and provide adequate healthcare is missing the point. Who invaded Kuwait and brought the international justice system down on himself? Second, Nagler’s suggestion that if we approach terrorists with peace and love they will lay down their arms and bombs is also missing the point. There are two things that men can do to make a living in Afghanistan: They can take up arms and learn to kill infidels, or they can work in the opium trade. These are the people to whom we must show nonviolence? The real world has never shown that appeasement of terrorists or violent humans makes them stop their evil ways. Robin Welch ’55, M.S. ’56, Ph.D. ’71 Mountain View Michael Nagler’s dedication toward a nonviolent future heartens me. I wish him well. But there always have been and always will be bullies—Stalins, Hitlers, Saddam Husseins—intrinsic villains of great skill who manage to accumulate energetic followings of dangerous proportions. There also will always be religious fanatics with the same egregious potential. Neither will ever be susceptible to persuasion and can only be contained, or defeated, by force. The world desperately needs the work of Nagler—and of our nation—toward containing such evildoers. But for civilized survival, it is vital to recognize that containment can never be 100 percent, and that bullies and evildoers finally understand only one thing—force. Edward Mulvaney ’49 Pasadena “You reason with terrorists…by respecting their humanity and listening to their complaints,” says Nagler. This is surely the worst sort of ivory-towerism that leads so many to conclude that the Berkeley faculty and student body are composed of complete kooks whose ability to rationalize the root cause of all manner of crime knows no bounds. I wonder if those Afghan women realized that just a touch of respect and a willingness to listen could have saved them from having their heads blown off by Kalashnikov-toting, madrasa-educated fanatics. I’m not certain how many of our fellow Cal grads are serving in the current military campaign in and around Afghanistan; I hope those who are there are not getting their mail forwarded to them. They would have to wonder how California Monthly went from November’s “The Faculty Reflects” survey of seven academics with differing viewpoints to December’s all-out lecture with its not-so-subtle suggestion that U.S. citizens’ consumption of petroleum products is at least a bit responsible for the kind of hatred that assaulted us in September. Sadly, the only people who know for certain that Berkeley is not composed of such kooks are the people who have attended the University. Bill Dawson ’98 Vienna, Austria How naïve, how gullible, how ignorant can you get? To believe that you can “reason” with such arrogant hate is to embrace evil. There is no excuse for what they did. I worked on the 86th floor of the South Tower, I am a New Yorker, and to read such idiocy is offensive to me. Regan Mason ’99 Sacramento Michael Nagler aptly compares the September 11 attacks to the Sack of Rome. After enduring centuries of warfare with the Roman army on their own soil, the so-called barbarians finally reached a point of parity with the decaying Roman Empire which enabled them to shift the battle scene to Rome itself. Prominent among these bands of “terrorists” was a group called the Vandals, who sacked Rome in 455 A.D. Today, we still apply the name of this tribe to those who deface or damage property. If, 1,500 years later, we still employ an ethnic slur like “vandalism” to designate lawless and destructive acts, then we are clearly no closer than the ancient Romans to comprehending our own culpability in perpetuating the current cycle of global violence. Patrick Gordis ’90 Berkeley I read with deep appreciation your interview with Michael Nagler. The article mirrors my deepest beliefs about nonviolence as the only permanent solution for world peace. Tom Dixon ’60 Sonoma Thank you so much for the article by Peter Dale Scott (“U.S. attempts to check out library books—permanently,” December) and the interview with Michael Nagler. I share their concerns. The strength of the United States lies in the diversity of opinion that is openly expressed and in free access to information. I am proud to be an American, but I am very uncomfortable with those who define patriotism as total, uncritical support for the way our government is waging the war against terrorism. President Bush asked us not to let September 11 affect the way we live our lives. Stifling criticism is giving in to terrorism. Katherine Rotherham ’62 San Diego Alumnus of the Year I don’t think we should be so quick to congratulate Norman Mineta for his job as Secretary of Transportation (“Mr. Mineta goes to Washington,” December). How does he respond to what Frank Rich (in the New York Times, January 5, 2002) writes about his achievements so far? “The Department of Transportation announced that its ‘new’ standards for hiring airport security screeners would not require a high-school diploma, allowing thousands of the existing screeners to stay in place. The department’s motto seems to be: if it’s broke, don’t fix it. Never mind that even four months after the attacks, the state of passenger screening remains such that American Airlines let Richard Reid board one of its flights but turned away one of the President’s agents.” Seymour Chatman Professor emeritus of rhetoric and film Berkeley  Return to Top |
| |||||||||||
| About
CAA Contact
Us
Update
your Address CAA Career Opportunities Privacy Policy |
©2009 California Alumni
Association. All Rights Reserved For questions about CAA: info@alumni.berkeley.edu Technical inquiries: web@alumni.berkeley.edu
|
Alumni House Berkeley, CA 94720-7520 Toll-Free: (888) CAL-ALUM Phone: (510) 642-7026 Fax: (510) 642-6252
|
