After reading the April 5th Viewpoint, "The Faulty Logic of Non-Cooperation," I could hardly contain my frustration. I can't decide if it's sweeping generalizations about liberals, the narrow-minded characterization of non-cooperation as a vague and hollow protest, the belief that people are trying to hold the protest just to be self-righteous, or the decision to take words from my previous Viewpoint completely out of context in attempt to make the protest seem illegitimate that bother me the most.
Let me take a moment to address them all.
In regard to sweeping generalizations about liberals, I'd have to say that, aside from the fact that stereotypes usually aren't "good things" to put in articles expected to be taken seriously, the attempt to defend the current (highly conservative) administration and its actions is completely futile.
The writer, who I think may also be writing the President's speeches for him, insists that there is a growing "liberal trend of villainizing the United States while giving the forces of evil a free pass". Apparently, all us liberals want to do is support forces of evil.
It's not that we just want to see American troops home rather than in Iraq fighting a losing war. It's not that we think this entire preemptive war (preemptive war aka starting a fight) is pointless and waged on false pretenses. And it's certainly not that we liberals can think of nearly a million better ways to spend billions, if not trillions, of American dollars.
It's that we're all terrorists! Let's face it, those who support this administration have no ground to stand on, and the entire world knows it. But if you insist, go on and continue to believe that there is merit in what our government is doing so that you can sleep better at night.
In regard to calling non-cooperation a vague and hollow protest, first off, I don't see how it is vague, or how you can ask, "Is the problem the war's premise, its management, or its continuation?" In my Viewpoint, "Support the Day of Non-Cooperation", I clearly objected to the premise of the war ("dying for no reason"), the management (spending our tax dollars and getting nowhere), and the continuation (the protest is to stop the war ... not sure how that confuses you). This war has been a disaster from day one, and I'd say most are upset with every single aspect of it!
As far as the protest being hollow, well I mean, you must believe then that all those bus boycotts and sit-ins, for example, had absolutely nothing to do with the success of the civil rights movement.
Yea, good old Martin Luther King Jr. just must have been wrong! And, in case you take the route of objection by saying something like, "Well, that was a completely different situation, different time, etc.", allow me to talk about the Democrats sweeping Congress, the growing disdain for the presidency in papers, on television and in homes across the country, and the realization by many that our campaign in Iraq is an obvious failure ... and how despite everything, the president wants to send in more troops, pretend like there is nothing wrong, continue to send our country on a downward spiral, and completely ignore the voices of the American people.
Considering our track record, it's definitely time to try something new. Not to say that I suggest we stop with the day of non-cooperation. As I mentioned in my earlier Viewpoint, non-cooperation is a powerful first step but we should continue and in the future have a day devoted to debate, lectures, panels and various anti-war, anti-violence, pro-peace sentiments.
I call upon those who support the April 5th Viewpoint's "challenge [to] those critical of [U.S.] presence in Iraq to reject a useless disruption of campus life and instead devise a venue for reasoned, sound and worthwhile debate" to realize that a first step is required, and this day of non-cooperation will serve as a powerful first step.
In regard to the contention that the day of non-cooperation is just some self-righteous endeavor, well, I'm sorry but to this comment a reply is hardly deserved. If you don't support the day, that's great: Go to the movies, go out to eat, don't show support, do what you want - but don't try and keep professors from being allowed to show their support because you can't do without class for a day. Seriously, there is nothing to back up that statement (an extremely offensive statement that shows the writer obviously has little respect for his peers); this is only an extremely pessimistic opinion.
In regard to the last avowal, where the writer claims, "Sadly, however, I'm inclined to believe that this article will be ignored in favor of that which one of non-cooperation's most vocal supporters has suggested to be an integral part of sticking it to the man - 'smoking and hanging out'", I am really, truly disgusted.
The style is like that of a crooked politician, incorrectly and disrespectfully manipulating someone else's words for gross usage. I believed, and still believe, that the day of non-cooperation should be moved to April 20th because of logistical reasons, not because of smoking pot. My mention of pot was an attempt to forestall the reactions of people who would think I had an ulterior motive for switching the date. I also mentioned that, as a coincidence, 4/20 does happen to in some ways go hand in hand with a day devoted to the promotion of peace.
But, the day is not simply 'about peace'; it's about stopping the war. While some will find smoking to be integral, that does not mean smoking will be integral for all. The efforts to discredit me by jumbling my words and making me look like some crazed drugged out hippie who shouldn't be taken seriously are laughable at best.
So, let me leave first with a general message to those who think that non-cooperation is faulty; if you do not have your own solution to propose, you are part of the problem. I strongly disagree with the claim in last week's Viewpoint that "the suggestion of not learning as a means of protest merely feeds an overarching unwillingness of anti-war critics to intellectually defend their arguments". Not only do I fail to see any unwillingness of anti-war critics to intellectually defend their arguments, but I see this day of protest as a day of learning, of discussion and of debate (albeit outside the classroom).
Daniel Hurwit is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major.
