We would like to respond to the Nov. 1 Viewpoint by Gregory Dimitriadis and Teitur Torkelsson. It is true that the U.S. Flag Code is not law - it is more like suggested guidelines. Beyond that, there are many things wrong with what they said. For example, the bandana worn by Miss Starr was not an American flag, but of another design using similar stars and stripes.
First, we hope they understand how Americans might be a bit put off when they open up the newspaper and are greeted by foreigners lecturing them on American values - especially when those values involve taking down the American flag and replacing it with another. Personally, we do not think that the UN represents American values, and can say with much certainty that most Americans do not think so either. But that is really beside the point.
Does the UN consider it a priority to insert itself in place of the sovereign governments around the world? If not, why celebrate the UN by symbolizing such an idea? (After all, what else is symbolized by taking down a sovereign nation's flag and raising the UN one in its place?) And, if so, then the people of this country, who just recently freely elected members of its sovereign government as they have been doing for over two centuries, are under no obligation to approve the replacement of their flag with that of unelected bureaucrats overwhelmingly from other, less democratic and often hostile nations.
Dimitriadis and Torkelsson claim that the way in which the whole process was executed was undemocratic. This is simply not true. Some students at Tufts learned of an activity in which at least one administrator was to be involved, decided they did not like what it symbolized, and peacefully petitioned the administration to reconsider. This is patently representative of how a democratic republic works.
The administration did not acquiesce because they had to, but because they felt it was the right thing to do. The concerned students did not do anything violent, but rather sent a mere letter to the authorities. It was a perfect example of free speech. We are not sure of the UN's take on it, but here in the U.S. we cherish it. It was a quintessential example of a peaceful petition for redress of grievances. (Reference the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)
The two foreigners also refer to the petitioners as "intolerant." How was the petitioners' request intolerant? Peacefully asking for due respect in a letter prior to the event itself is intolerant? Of course, some of the signers are intolerant - of the human rights violations routinely committed by some of the UN member nations. We do not tolerate the Sudanese genocide. We do not tolerate censorship of the Chinese people. We do not tolerate the dictatorships of Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. We do not tolerate the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia and (until U.S. intervention) Afghanistan. We do not tolerate the excessive failures and expenditures of the United Nations; and if the UN Day organizers are tolerant of all this, then shame on them for being part of the problem.
But as for the UN flag being flown on American soil in a ceremony subsidized by an American institution, we showed tolerance of everything except for simultaneous disrespect towards the U.S flag. Never did we request that the administration prevent the UN flag from being flown; we just requested that Old Glory remain flying high. The change of venue was entirely the administration's idea. Kudos to them for coming up with such a wonderful compromise in which both flags were flown. (And isn't the UN supposedly an arena for compromise?) Such unwillingness to respect a simple and legitimate request by patriots of a country that has graciously given the UN tax-free prime real estate in lower Manhattan (in addition to the funding behind over twenty-five percent of the UN's budget) reveals the UN Day organizers' true colors.
Dimitriadis' and Torkelsson's comment, "The Tufts Republicans cannot undermine the Republican ideals by proposing positions that contradict the one held by the United States of America and President George W. Bush himself, who encouraged the promotion of U.N. Day celebrations in his Oct. 24 proclamation," betrays their stunning ignorance of American society and government. The reality is that any citizen, regardless of political affiliation, can criticize any politician or policy at any time (unless the criticism involves slander or libel).
We are particularly put off by the clear implications that those against replacing the stars and stripes with the UN flag were fanatic Nazis. First of all, Miss Starr is hardly a "far-right student." She is a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-drug legalization, stem-cell research-loving Jew. To be against the replacement of one's flag with another is not nationalist, it is patriotic. Anyone who cannot draw the obvious distinction between nationalism and patriotism does not deserve to be in Fletcher.
If the students had marched to the flag pole, shot the person working it, taken down and burned the UN flag, raised the American flag, and silenced any dissenters, then it would be reasonable to liken them to Nazis. But it is absolutely outrageous to call Nazis those Americans who peacefully spoke out against raising a foreign flag in place of Old Glory on American soil because they hold their country in high esteem and do not find favorable the foreign entity. To marginalize that group and hint at calling it Nazi is nothing more than lowly, insulting, unjustified, malicious, radical, and ignorant.
Daniel Mencher is a junior majoring in Spanish, and Jordana Starr is a senior majoring in political science and philosophy.
