Most Popular
Job Board
GU Shouldn't Promote the Status Quo
As alumni of Georgetown University, we must declare our profound degree of unease regarding the intellectual environment at Georgetown. We submit that our school increasingly resembles a breeding ground for mere functionaries.
Of late, much in this newspaper has presented ground for concern in this regard. It seems rather questionable that the election of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will provide a break from the “status quo that 28 [sic] years of Bushes and Clintons have created” (“Obama: Change We Believe in,” THE HOYA, Feb. 5, 2008, A2), as THE HOYA’s editors would have it, because Obama has made his commitment to the continuation of Israeli apartheid, capitalist globalization and American oligarchy rather clear. Another editorial (“Save a Cow, Go to Leo’s,” Feb. 8, A3) claims not to want to “overly politicize” Georgetown’s achievement of largely vegetarian-friendly facilities — but, to us, it seems obvious that one’s dietary choices are, like most other things, eminently political, and should be politicized, as cruelty to non-human animals and lack of concern for the malnourished humans who could be fed with the food given to animals later slaughtered for consumption should both quite clearly be resisted. In a similar vein, Stephen Kenny (“By Dramatizing Planet’s Perils, Politicians Create New Ones,” THE HOYA, March 18, 2008, A3) warns us to approach our response to the problem of climate change with an eye to the “core American value of individual liberty”: in response, we would say that such an atomized, air-conditioned, and de-natured conception of “liberty” must be called into question by the presence of an “Other” — especially, as in this case, when the capitalist pursuit of “freedom” calls into question the very ability for billions of dispossessed human beings to continue living. It is not surprising, in our view, that such anti-social modes of analysis should be so casually expressed in THE HOYA, for they speak to what we consider a deeply troubled society — and university.
Prone to groupthink, many Georgetown students see law school or Wall Street as the goal of university education. Though society itself is much to blame for this unfortunate set of priorities, it is also true that Georgetown discourages idealism, be it through economics courses that present mainstream theories as grounded truth or international relations professors who dismiss anything other than the conventional theories of realism and its corollaries as the realm of “intellectual softies.”
In our view, the university’s ties to trans-national power elites also contribute largely to this problem. Those in the mainstream who already have ready access to the hegemonic media are often given the university’s stage, while critical voices only rarely make their way to campus — and then rarely without extended lobbying by student groups. The university’s provision of Gaston Hall to Jim Cramer’s 2006 “Mad Money Back to School Tour,” which was marked by an infantile adulation of capital and an attendant drive to make as much money as possible, should be considered an embarrassment for an institution that purports to instill values of social justice in its students. As, of course, should Georgetown’s hiring of powerful and highly destructive state officials as professors. Need we remind the community that it was Professor Albright who famously concluded that “the price” — the death of a half-million Iraqi children resulting from the pre-invasion sanctions regime — “is worth it.” It is practically unbelievable that “slam-dunk” George Tenet has absurdly been granted the position of distinguished professor in the practice of diplomacy at our university.
Our alma mater does not understand itself, as a true host of teaching should, as a dissident institution — that is, as one that gives students the tools to question orthodoxy. Rather, it willingly embraces and submits itself to the intense bigotry of mainstream thought. Extant power structures, Georgetown tells us, represent the full range of the possible. Students are only able to “choose” from a set of theories seen as holding the most Ccurrency in the marketplace”; accordingly, they are taught not to interrogate power and resist its abuses, but rather unquestioningly adore and valorize it. Such institutional myopia, has the hardly shocking consequence of systematically de-legitimizing any consideration of alternative modes of thought and social organization — methods by which, we believe, true happiness could come to replace the alienation and fragmentation that so centrally characterize much of our current reality.
If our emphasis on the systematic dismissal of alternative visions of society that dominates Georgetown harkens back to the days of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, with their notorious platitudes of TINA (There Is No Alternative), it should: Though the political “leadership” of the United States has been seen to moderate itself from the “excesses” of Thatcherism and Reaganism, the fact remains that our socio-economic system — marked by an elective aristocracy that claims itself a democracy and the domination of everyday life by corporate interests — is largely indistinguishable from the one championed by Thatcher and Reagan. In truth, any change that has taken place since their time has been — as it only could have been — a quantitative one. We, in contrast, seek a decidedly qualitative change of society that fundamentally affirms the development of true individuality within a supportive human community characterized at minimum by productive and distributional schemes responsive to human need and ecological balance. In place of TINA, we proclaim that another world is possible — and profoundly desirable.
We here claim that the dominant mode of intellectual transference at Georgetown represents a very clear impediment to the realization of such dreams. We find Georgetown to be an institution that propagates knowledge which is systematically reduced for the sake of expediency and accommodation to the “way things are”; concurrently, we see the dispensation of such knowledge as characterized by a marked disregard for social responsibility. We lament that Georgetown students are taught to become acceptable, streamlined candidates for positions within existing hierarchical arrangements. They should, in our view, be taught to become revolutionaries.
Javier Sethness and Jakob Rieken graduated from the School of Foreign Service in 2007.
Latest Issue
Poll
Login
I would like to know more information about the authors' chosen professions and experience, given their jibes at the student body's choices. I have many friends who have chosen non-profit work and government jobs and many who have pursued law, business, and medicine. Neither path is without merit; nor is the pursuit of a corporate career contrary to the pursuit of social justice. The authors are entitled to their opinions, but they are just that - opinions. I think it is wrong to criticize others for their choice when the motivations and rationale are unknown.
As for the education at Georgetown, professors have different approaches, some of which encourage discussion and others which promote regurgitation. In both cases, the education provides the tools to understand and challenge arguments. If the authors felt bound by group-think, they are either lacking in creativity or intellectual adaptability.
Finally, it is not the responsibility of an institution to teach social responsibility. First, parents bear much of the responsibility for educating their children and instilling values in them. Second, forcing this virtue on students would in itself be a form of group-think. Rather, the University offers courses on History, Politics, Language, Literature, and other subjects, all of which provide opportunities to learn about the inequalities in the world and suggest potential avenues for addressing them.
I hope that the authors found the writing process to be cathartic, but I doubt they feel refreshed. While their position does reflect some aspects of reality, it smacks of angst and disillusionment. If a year in the real world has crushed their spirits, then they might as well take the LSAT in June.
Brendan Staley, COL '05
The problem with this article is that you pretend to want the school to push itself from the mainstream at any cost, yet seem to tolerate only allowing it to go in one direction - towards radical liberalism. I bet there would be a lot of squawking if Georgetown hired some proponents of Social Darwinism or Eugenics, Anti-Feminists, dissenters on the Global Warming issue, vocal Nihilists, and a Neo-Nazi or two. These radical positions are still alive and strong today. If you want Georgetown to become an institution of cultural dissent, you must embrace both sides of the spectrum, not just the side you agree with or view to be "socially useful".
Hi Brendan, it's good to see you still keep up with what's going on here. I have a couple of issues with your response, however.
I think the underlying concern that Javier and Jakob express here is not how they were treated at Georgetown, LSE or Cambridge (where they now find themselves), but with the very real sense that we (whether we realize it or not) are in many ways being groomed not just for certain careers, but to think a certain way once we get there. The style of teaching used by professors is irrelevant if the discussions are themselves limited by our own inability or unwillingness to think beyond that which we are provided in class, or by a professor's unwillingness or inability to challenge us to approach an issue from a new angle. The contention here is that the university does not do enough to foster that ability or willingness to do so. Instead, we get large core requirement lectures in international relations and economics, where it takes a freshman of great courage to stand up in class and ask a PhD, "Are you sure?"
I had one professor who challenged us every time our class met to fundamentally look at our priorities, how we view our world, its systems, and what we really are doing with ourselves. His name was Professor Faruk Tabak, and he passed away on February 15, 2008, without a mention in the Hoya or a University Broadcast Email.
As for the point about social responsibility, you are describing a secular university, a status which Georgetown, despite all appearances, has not quite reached. As a Jesuit institution, its very existence is founded upon fostering a sense of social responsibility. The phrase "Men for Others" (or "Men and Women for and with Others," if you prefer) was our mantra at my Jesuit high school, and it can be found here too. The problem is you need to look much harder than you should have to.
Take care!
(Moderator: I believe this post is on-topic because it deals with the authors' views and credibility, and does nothing but quote their comments on a site that is publicly available to anyone with a Facebook account.)
Jakob and Javier also saw fit to post on the Facebook event for GUGS' "Grills Gone Wild"!
Here's the link: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=12640893884
And to those without Facebook accounts, here are the comments. Grills Gone Wild, by the way, is basically just a big, weeklong grilling fiesta leading up to Georgetown Day. GUGS is the Georgetown University Grilling Society, one of the most popular clubs on campus. The description of the event is just a list of the week's grilling events, ranging from a burger-eating contest to a "grilloff".
(To those who may question the authenticity of these comments, could anybody else possibly write like this?)
------
Jakob: "This is absolutely revolting. This event is not merely an uncritical acceptance of the murder of our planetary coinhabitants, it is a wholesale adulation thereof. In a world where millions are going hungry, you decide to flaunt your ability to overconsume (an ability given to you not by merit but by a violent hierarchy). This is reminiscent of the orgiastic abuses of privilege in the Roman empire. I guess it's an outgrowth of similarly extreme violence practiced in our society (violence that has not decreased in force but has certainly become less visible).
One more thing--a "cultural day"??? What arrogance!"
-----
Javier: "this shit is seriously offensive.
'Auschwitz begins wherever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they’re only animals.'
-- theodor adorno"
-----
So thanks guys! You compared a grilling event to the Holocaust (if you were still at Georgetown I would turn that in as a bias-related incident) and continued your penchant for sounding like you speak in pamphlets. I'm sorry, but THAT "shit" is seriously offensive, and I think it also teaches the lesson that you should pick your arguments. Making a vastly inappropriate Holocaust analogy over an on-campus grilling event... it's hard to take THIS Viewpoint seriously once we have a bit of context about the authors' views.
And Jakob, if you've never had a GUGS burger, you should know that they ARE pretty damn "orgiastic."
Best,
Future Lawyer/Little Burger-Eating Eichmann/Everything that Is Wrong in the World
I guess I was somewhat wrong in my post above. Judging by your other postings, you guys seem to be all for Neo-Nazi professors at Georgetown.
Thanks to Javier and Jakob for broaching a subject that usually floats just below the surface here. A little bit of institutional self-reflection is always a good idea -- especially inside the Beltway in DC.
Kevin, I would definitely echo your response in general, and in particular about Faruk Tabak. I, too, am disappointed that the University made little mention of his passing (I did note a small blurb in the Blue & Grey). I had the honor of being his student for a semester and had signed up to take his course this spring, as well. We need more professors of his caliber around here. If I may finish with one of my favorite quotes of his:
"Work is the opposite of life!"
Cheers to Professor Tabak!
Doug--I find it incredibly offensive that you accuse us of "be[ing] all for Neo-Nazi professors at Georgetown." If you had read our piece with any degree of tolerance, you would have seen that we are profoundly opposed to fascism in all its forms. We called for a greater degree of intellectual openness at Georgetown. This in no way means advocating that room be made for views founded in hate, such as Nazism. As Kevin points out above, we were decrying the push for "political practicality" found in so many of Georgetown's courses (particularly core courses for the School of Foreign Service--though there is some overlap, I obviously have not taken all core courses for degrees in the MSB, NHS, or the College, but I suspect that things are not drastically different there), especially given that Georgetown prides itself in being a University emphasizing "the life of the mind for the life of the world" (Mentis Vita Pro Vita Mundi). Courses where professors suggest that humans are "by their very nature" self-interested and greedy and that given this "truth" it would be irrational not to behave in a self-interested manner do not speak to an environment for socially aware intellectual growth.
"I <3 Jugs"--I would have loved to hear concrete objections to our actual Viewpoint, but instead you try to discredit it by making reference to comments made in another context. If you find that our observations are not accurate, please provide real evidence for your position. Don't try to devalue our article by arguing that the comments you reposted provide "context about the authors' views."
Best wishes,
Jakob
can the word douche be better epitomized?
Post new comment