Those tireless defenders of freedom on the Republican side of the aisle in Washington are trying topush through legislation that will allow a Federal Commision the right to monitor "anti-Americanism" in foreign studies centers at U.S. universities. Which means that political ideologues could be passing judgement on the classes, books, and professors at our Universities with little oversite.
I first heard about this possibility back in November (see below), but hadn't much looked into it, but as the bill has passed the House, it looks a bit more threatening. The group behind this is probably the same one that pushed it's report on "un-patriotic" faculty and students at universities in the aftermath. You know the outfit headed by Lynne Cheney and Joe Lieberman.
Anyway, the point is that once again those who pushed us into the USA Patriot Act and war in Iraq, who deride peace protests as unimportant "opinion polls", and confine protesters away from the President and his delicate sensibilities. These are the people who defend freedom by storing it away on a shelf and take it out only when it suits them.
By introducing a climate of fear in political science, international relations, history, and area studies departments, this legislation could mean that students are taught only one side of the story, leaving them unprepared for reality and unable to determine the truth for themselves. As quick examples, this legislation could keep future students from examining all side of the Vietnam War and the domino theory, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the genocide of the American Indian.
The next question is where does it stop? Right now, this proposes to monitor only programs that receive Federal funding. Of course, it's possible that that could include any institution that has students paying for classes with Federal Financial Aid, but even if it doesn't what keeps legislators from extending it in that manner? When does it shift to all universities, or to all instructors who receives grants for research? A Federal attempt to monitor these programs sets a dangerous precedent, and can only negatively affect scholarship at our schools.
All of that ignores the basics of American political philosophy. At it's core this is an attempt to restrain free speech on our college campuses. What's worse is that the perpetrators are not even trying to hide that fact.
Congress moves to regulation of postcolonial studies pls.
forward widely, especially to anyone you know in
the academic world.
From Michael Bednar
Department of History
The University of Texas at Austin
Congress Moves to Regulate Postcolonial Studies (fwd)
Oct. 20, 2003
Friends,
As many of you who know me well will soon realize, I have
become a political activist for the first time in my life. I
am not here to rant, but to inform you on current
legislation that is being debated in the House of
Representatives. The legislation in question, H.R. 3077,
will rewrite the Title VI legislation that has provided FLAS
money to many of us and that also funds the various
area-studies centers in our universities. In particular, the
legislation proposes the creation of an "advisory board"
that may severely impact universities by dictating the
curricula taught, course materials assigned in class, and
the faculty who are hired in institutions that accept Title
VI funding. It gets worse. The U.S. House of
Representative's Subcommittee on Select Education Hearing on
"International Programs in Higher Education and Que stions
about Bias" on June 19, 2003
http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/108th/sed/titlevi61903/wl61903.htm
begins with an opening statement by Representative Phil
Gringrey that includes the following passage: "we are here
today to learn more about a number of programs that are
authorized and funded under Title VI, which are some of the
oldest programs of support to higher education. These
programs reflect the priority placed by the federal
government on
diplomacy, national security, and trade competitiveness.
International studies and education have become an
increasingly important and relevant topic of conversation
and consideration in higher education... However, with
mounting global tensions, some programs under the Higher
Education Act that support foreign language and area studies
centers have recently attracted national attention and
concern due to the perception of their teachings and
policies."
Testimony provided by Dr. Stanley Kurtz (available from the
link above) portrays areas studies centers as hotbeds of
unpatriotic anti-Americanism. Dr. Kurtz focuses, in
particular, on post-colonial theory and the work of Edward
Said's Orientalism in which "Said equated professors who
support American foreign policy with the 19th century
European intellectuals who propped up racist colonial
empires. The core premise of post-colonial theory is that it
is immoral for a scholar to put his knowledge of foreign
languages and cultures at the service of American power."
(quoted from Kurtz's statement found at
http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/108th/sed/titlevi61903/kurtz.htm
Kurtz asserts that the rampant presence of post-colonial
theory in academic circles, with its bias against America
and the
West, has produced a corps of professors who refuse to
instruct or support (with FLAS grants) students interested
in pursuing careers in the foreign service and/or
intelligence agencies. Kurtz comments that: "We know that
transmissions from the September 11 highjackers [sic] went
untranslated for want of Arabic speakers in our intelligence
agencies.
Given that, and given the ongoing lack of foreign language
expertise in our defense and intelligence agencies, the
directors of the Title VI African studies centers who voted
unanimously, just after September 11, to reaffirm their
boycott of the NSEP [National Security Education Program],
have all acted to undermine America's national security, and
its
Foreign policy. And so has every other Title VI-funded
scholar in Latin American-, African-, and Middle Eastern
Studies who has upheld the long-standing boycott of the
NSEP."
The answer, Kurtz proposes, is to create an oversight board
that will link Title VI funding to students training for
careers in national security, defense and intelligence
agencies, and the Foreign Service. How effective was Dr.
Kurtz's presentation? The committee not only believed
everything Dr.Kurtz claimed, they even implemented most of
his
suggestions, including the "advisory board."
An amended House Resolution, H.R. 3077, proposes to create
an International Education Advisory Board, with appointed
members from homeland security, the Department of Defense,
and the National Security Agency, "to increase
accountability by providing advice, counsel, and
recommendations to Congress on international education
issues for higher education."
(Quoted from the Sept. 19, 2003 press release of
Congressman John Boehner, committee
chairman,http://edworkforce.house.gov/press/press108/09sep/hr3077psub091
703.htm)
The full resolution of H.R. 3077 can be found at
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3077:
H.R. 3077 was amended in subcommittee and this amended
resolution elaborates on the composition and role of the
International Education Advisory Board (see especially pages
16-24).
The amended H.R. 3077 can be found at:
http://edworkforce.house.gov/markups/108th/sed/hr3077/917main.htm
Click on the link that says "Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute" which will download an Adobe Acrobat pdf file.
This amended H.R. 3077 has been sent to the full committee,
which met on Thursday, September 25 at 11:00 AM to discuss
the resolution before sending it to the House of
Representatives. Just in case you think that I have lost my
marbles or that I am over-reacting, the Higher Education and
National Affairs newsletter, published by the American
Council on Education, and available
athttp://www.acenet.edu/hena/ includes the following
comments on H.R.
3077 (page 1, continued on page 4): House Republicans
intend for H.R. 3077 to build on existing international and
foreign language studies Title VI programs, adding what many
in the higher education community believe is
unnecessary federal oversight through a new International
Education Advisory Board." Federal international education
programs were the focus of a House subcommittee hearing in
June, during which one witness testified to a strong
"anti-American" bias in many college and university
international departments which he claimed could possibly
undermine
American foreign policy. ACE presented opposing testimony
(see
http://www.acenet.edu/washington/international/Hartle.Testimony.pdf
As a subcommittee press release asserted, this advisory
body would be created in consultation with homeland security
agencies in order to increase accountability by providing
advice, counsel, and recommendations to Congress on
international education issues for higher education." Higher
education leaders oppose this board on the grounds
that the powers it is granted are so broad that they put
institutions in danger of losing control over their own
curricula, hiring practices, and other aspects of their
international programs." In short, it seems that the House
of Representatives is about to regulate the courses and
content that we, as future professors, will teach in
colleges and universities. The possibility that someone in
homeland security will instruct college professors (with
Ph.D.s) on the proper, patriotic, "American-friendly"
textbooks that may be used in class scares and outrages me.
This morning, this was news to
me. If this is new to you and if you feel as equally scared
and angered that the government may censure your future
academic career, then I urge you to:
1) distribute this message to other professors and students
in area studies; and
2) write a handwritten letter (in ink) to your local
congressmen and to John A. Boehner, Chairman of the Full
Committee on Education and the Workforce at the following
address:
John A. Boehner
1011 Longworth H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515
Please refrain from emails and typewritten or computer
printouts as these are often ignored in Congress as being
mass-produced by special-interest groups. Write in ink, in
legible penmanship, and let your voice be heard.
Best,
Michael Bednar
Department of History
The University of Texas at Austin