Student Life Archives

In his column “Scientific competency is essential to the liberal arts” Roman Goldstein essentially attacks humanities and social science (HSS) majors as scientifically incompetent. He is both offensive and incorrect. Despite the fact that Washington University has created a system in which HSS majors do not really take the general sciences, these students manage to excel scientifically nonetheless.

Roman does correctly state that most HSS majors do not take the science classes geared for science majors. A quick look at the science-major track offers a clear explanation why non-majors do not usually take these classes, which consist mostly of introductory biology, chemistry, and physics: they are primarily pre-med weed-out classes. In an earlier column by Roman this year, he discourages the incoming freshmen from being pre-med because of these same classes he is now advocating taking! He writes,

“About two-thirds of students say that grades in pre-med courses don’t accurately reflect their understanding of the material….These classes are foremost designed to weed you out, as my professors admitted. Thus, I was tested on material barely covered in either lecture or the textbook [and] did chemistry labs that required no understanding of the chemistry behind them….”

If Roman describes the pre-med track as such, why should HSS majors be a part of such a system? In taking science classes, the goal is not to be weeded out and to take exams that test what we do not know. Rather, the goal for the HSS major is truly to learn about science and its applications. Unfortunately, the science classes of the pre-med track do not provide an environment conducive to reaching this goal.

Also, Roman hugely underestimates the importance of the non-major courses. If Roman insists that “you don’t need Shakespeare in daily life,” then you certainly don’t need to understand the molecular structure of tetrahydrofuran either. Unlike the major courses, non-major courses teach us the relevant scientific aspects of daily life. For example, Human Biology gives students a chance to explore and understand the systems of the body and their functions. The class teaches students why someone hyperventilating breathes into a brown bag or why focusing on something in the distance gives tired eyes a rest. In addition to this applicable information, the process of diagnosing a disease does require critical thinking. Like Human Biology, many of the non-major classes sharpen the mind.

Roman has also overlooked the power of HSS classes like history and economics to exercise critical thinking. As a firm believer in a liberal arts education, I too believe in the necessity of taking science classes in order to develop critical thinking. I disagree, however, that science is the only way to create the necessary skepticism to which Roman refers. Critical reading and writing can also provide a critical framework through which to view our government and society.

And does the critical thinking provided by science-major classes really enable us to hold better, more well informed conversations about genetically modified products or cloning? Roman seems to have confused the average HSS major with the average American when he writes, “The average HSS major can’t form an informed opinion on these products because s/he doesn’t understand genetics and can’t follow the scientific debate on the subject.” As students at a very selective liberal arts university, most here are more than decently knowledgeable in science and math, since they usually enter Washington University with a year or two of high-level science and math under their belt.

However, the university does need to create a curriculum that allows non-science majors to take the general science classes. It needs to create general chemistry, biology, and physics courses that are not designed to make us fail but that emphasize learning instead. This thought is great, but the reality is that this university’s goal is to breed doctors to increase its research on genetics, rather than to educate the general student body in the areas of biology and chemistry. But that’s a whole other issue.

The important factor Roman points out is the need for scientific competency. But instead of underestimating the competence of HSS majors or demanding that the school make them take “24 credits of rigorous scientific classes,” how about offering science classes not designed to weed them out? And more importantly, how about trusting the fact that previous knowledge, a few non-major science courses, and an HSS major do indeed make knowledgeable, participatory citizens?

In the midst of rallies for Howard Dean and his supporters pouring maple syrup, I can’t help but wonder, where have all the moderate Democrats gone? Are they hiding behind presidential candidate General Wesley Clark, secretly hoping he wins the nomination? Are they keeping their mouths shut for fear that others will think they are neo-conservatives instead of good liberals? Are there any moderate Democrats at Washington University?

I would venture to say that yes, there are moderate Democrats here. It’s just hard to find them because people often simplify politics into liberal and conservative, without any elaboration. People forget that the world is not black and white, but instead full of gray, and in this case, that gray is made up of moderate Democrats. Instead of recognizing the gray, many people shove moderate Democrats to one side or the other, often the liberal side.

Remember the saying “to assume makes an ass out of you and me?” This saying applies to liberal and conservative labels: assuming all liberals are the same could make an ass out of you and me. Believe it or not, some liberals had legitimate reasons for supporting the war in Iraq, just as some conservatives had reasons for opposing the war (as in “make profits, not war”). The key is how you define liberal. If liberal means simply being a pacifist and an extremist, then no, there would not be any liberals who supported the war. But this narrow definition of liberal is reactionary, meaning that the so-called liberals who purport it immediately dismiss any idea that does not fit inside it. If instead you extend the definition of liberal, then it becomes a much more progressive ideology. Then you just might be able to see liberals who supported the war in Iraq.

Take New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who spoke here at the Assembly Series. People often debate whether he is actually a liberal. According to a strict definition of liberal, clearly he is not. Friedman supported the war in Iraq, and continues to write columns that many liberals disagree with, especially columns about world trade and economic policies. But underneath the labels, Friedman shows a more comprehensive and progressive ideology. He does not simply take the popular liberal view against war in Iraq. Friedman discussed how the situation in Iraq is very different than the war in Vietnam, an idea that would not go over so well with reactionary liberals who assume that war is bad no matter what and who take every opportunity to compare any war to Vietnam. A progressive can remind these reactionary liberals that, although Vietnam was indeed a horrible war, sometimes war may be necessary.

Contrast Friedman’s lecture to last Monday’s speech by Vijay Prashad during the Campus Week of Dialogue on Race Relations. I went to Prashad’s talk expecting to hear about race relations, which did not seem unreasonable, since that was the stated topic. But in the first 10-15 minutes, Prashad outlined why the war in Iraq was bad-just slightly off topic. He proceeded to make fun of Thomas Friedman because he was not liberal enough and General Wesley Clark because Democrats should not support a general. Since when was the Democratic Party supposed to be completely anti-military? There is a difference between wanting less military spending and making a very inappropriate joke about a respected general. Prashad must not realize that if the Democrats support a very left wing candidate (who I’m sure Prashad would like) Bush is more likely to win. So evidently Prashad would take Bush over some moderate Democrat, like Wesley Clark. Prashad could have taken the opportunity to enlighten us on race relations, but instead he took cheap shots at moderate Democrats.

The differences between Prashad and Friedman clearly show how different liberals can be. On the one hand, there is Friedman, a progressive moderate, and on the other hand, there is Prashad, a reactionary liberal. However, often on this campus, all liberals are lumped together as one big happy family. Past columns have even called liberals a “silent liberal majority.” I agree with the idea that this so-called liberal majority should be more vocal, but we should recognize the diversity in liberal thought. This is why people should speak up for what they believe in, even if it doesn’t fit into the neat categories of liberal and conservative.

Diversity. It’s one of America’s favorite buzzwords, yet I have never figured out exactly what it means, why some people become passionately angered by the subject, and why others spend so much of their time talking about it, but do nothing to make it a meaningful reality in their lives.

At a place like Washington University, administrators talk incessantly about their commitment to the cause of diversity. In admissions and other hiring processes, the focus has consistently been on bringing in students and faculty from different backgrounds, cultures, and ethnicities. The result is a campus community filled with people from all over the country and the world, many with unique experiences that they can share with others.

Everyone from the chancellor on down emphasizes the University’s commitment to diversity through blanket statements of support and programming efforts. These programs, like Celebrations Weekend, expose multicultural students to the University who might not have an opportunity to see the campus otherwise. Similarly, the University spoke out on the issue of affirmative action earlier this year in light of the cases before the United States Supreme Court, reinforcing its pledge to ensure underrepresented communities are represented here.

In reality though, diversity has been and will always be just an idea. Commitment to diversity is not just saying the word or believing in it, or even having those “different” people hover around the periphery of your life; it’s being an active participant in understanding someone different from yourself.

Last Monday, Vijay Prashad, a professor at Trinity College and a noted author, alluded to the dangers of multiculturalism and diversity in a lecture that was part of the annual Campus Week of Dialogue on Race Relations.

He stated that the key risk of multiculturalism and diversity programs is that they offer up cultures and people for consumption. He gave a telling example in which someone who talked about ordering Chinese takeout food said “Let’s get a Chinese.” Clearly the person who used this phrase did not appreciate the great depth and contributions of the culture he was degrading. It became something he or she could consume, use and then discard.

Looking further into the issues Prashad raised, it occurred to me that the idea of diversity itself is part of the problem. It has become America’s politically correct Band-Aid: a way in which we can sugarcoat centuries of injustice and oppression and feel like we are somehow proactive in the quest for equality in our society. In the end, we can feel like we understand other types of people because they sit next to us in class, even if we do not make a concerted effort to learn about their cultures.

If we really are committed to learning from and experiencing other cultures, we should want to do these things without the aid of special programs. Saying there is support for diversity on this campus or in another type of professional environment will be a hollow statement if we are not willing to step up and actually talk to people different from ourselves.

I have known people who come away from cultural programs such as Diwali, Black Anthology, and Chinese New Year Festival feeling that they have “experienced” diversity. Watching a performance is not enough though. Take a step outside of your comfort zone and sit with someone who comes from a place that you have never heard of; have lunch with someone who does not share your beliefs or ideals.

Maintaining an interest in such dialogue and conversation is part of the solution. Then, perhaps, we will not be so caught up in the word “diversity,” and will actually be engaged in worthwhile activities that make it mean something.

Two weeks ago, The Onion-a far more honest news source than The New York Times or NPR (check the archives and compare)-ran a front-page article entitled “Relations Break Down Between Us and Them.” The picture shows a map behind Rumsfeld with America in green, labeled “US,” and the rest of the world in red, labeled “THEM.”

This is exactly what happened last Tuesday. Before the United Nations, Bush again embarrassed us by scolding the world for not going along as he became a war criminal. Yet again, Bush employed the simple-minded absolutist rhetoric of a bar-room drunk: “you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists.”

“Terror” has forever been a linguistic construction used by thugs to justify their war crimes. Stalin used it to justify the purges, and Hitler to invade Poland. For Bush, innocent Iraqis killed by Americans aren’t victims of terror. It’s only “terror” when “the Arab World” does it.

In other words, our President is a self-stated, jingoistic, religious zealot. He’s also a moral relativist.

Last Tuesday our President, the unelected fraud who speaks daily in our name, declared war against the world. Because of its sheer ghastliness, Bush’s maniacal message will be muffled, masked, and muted by our disgraced corporate “media.”

Read the speech. While our media may censor it, the rest of the world heard it loud and clear.

After all, we’re talking about the same lapdog media that enabled Bush and his administration-which is run no differently than a drug cartel, the mafia, or Bin Laden’s International Islamic Front-to invade a country without provocation, an act the Nuremburg Tribunal calls, “The Supreme International Crime,” since “it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

The lies of Thomas Friedman, Judith Miller, and cable “news” enabled this abominable war crime. Without their cheerleading, it could not have happened. Remember that as coffins pile up.

On September 24, 2003, our President left no doubt that America would maintain its failed foreign policy. And, contrary to what the media says, this is not a policy that began on 9/11. That’s more fiction.

Those who run the White House (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Kagan, Jeb Bush, Kristol, etc.) had a plan long before Bush was installed. Their foreign policy blueprint, called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” can be read on The Project for a New American Century website.

They developed it further (as summarized by Noam Chomsky, into a plan for “Global Rule by Force”) in the National Security Strategy of September 2002, found at the White House Website.

Finally, last March, they put the plan into action with their unconstitutional and unconscionable slaughter in civilization’s cradle.

There was nothing about their attack that wasn’t complete bull: the propaganda that sold it was bull, their proof of a threat was bull, the stated outcomes were bull and the stated cost-in time, in dollars, and in blood-was bull.

They lied, saying it was about weapons of mass destruction.

If Bush wanted to stage a military coup against a sovereign nation by means of an illegal military attack, that’s what he should have said. He should have said it was an act of desperation-an imperial coup executed to steal Iraq’s resources, to preserve the strength of the dollar, and to cover up Bush’s decision to give in to Bin Laden by removing American troops from Saudi Arabia (all topics warranting entire op-eds of their own).

But we can’t dwell on the past, since Bush’s gang sure isn’t. The neo-con (men) pulling Bush’s strings today do not mask the fact that they have no plans to stop with Iraq. Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are also on the hit list.

After all, there are still “terrorists” to kill. Most of them probably write for Al-Jazeera.

Here’s the bottom line: if you think the election in 2004 is just about beating Bush, you’re wrong. The pro-quagmire Democrats running for the Presidency-particularly Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, but also Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman and Graham-all consent to the Bush strategy.

If you want a holy war with “The Arab world,” you will get it with any of these men just as easily as you will with Bush’s cabal.

This election must not only be about ending the Bush administration, but also ending this insane and racist foreign policy that will leave nothing but terrorism, death, lies and graves in its wake.

Even prospective freshman knows that Washington University tries to avoid scheduling classes at 11 a.m. on Wednesdays-their tour guides usually mention it as they pass Graham Chapel. Why? Because every Wednesday at 11 a.m., the Assembly Series is presented, offering students the chance to listen to speakers that the Website calls “some of the most important voices in contemporary society.”

Such a description seems, at best, a stretch. While the Assembly Series does occasionally attract big names, few of the featured speakers are people with new or innovative ideas. Last week, for example, former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker gave a lecture entitled “American Leadership and Business Responsibility.” Two weeks before, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger discussed academic freedom. The speaker the following Wednesday was New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman. All three men certainly have impressive credentials, but a laundry list of degrees and awards does not make someone an ideal speaker.

The Assembly Series needs lecturers who can challenge students to think differently. Currently, students are hearing from the center. We may hear something we agree with or something we read in a newspaper, but we are given nothing dynamic or provocative to contemplate. The population of Washington University needs to hear something daring-to listen to someone who will actually say something unexpected.

As part of last week’s Campus Week of Dialogue on Race Relations, professor and author Vijay Prashad spoke about an “upside down Alice and Wonderland world of new racism.” Last fall, the Conservative Leadership Association brought Phyllis Schlafly to campus to give a lecture entitled “Feminist Fantasies.” Such speakers may not say things that the average Washington University student has thought about-let alone agrees with-but by simply saying something bold, such lecturers do us a world of good. They open our eyes.

Even the recent visit from wrestler-turned-conservative-pundit The Ultimate Warrior probably gave audience members as much (if not more) to think about than Paul Volcker did last week.

Most of us don’t have class on Wednesdays at 11 a.m. It’s time the Assembly Series gave us something better to do than sleep in.