OPINION & EDITORIAL
No movie plotline: Iraqi plan won’t fly
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Sam Clegg:
- Grocery store has a profit potential (February 29, 2008)
- Keep on turning in illegal immigrants (February 21, 2008)
- Robin Hood only lives in fairy tales, liberals' fantasies (February 7, 2008)
- Let me keep my own cash, SSFC (January 24, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Film office closes for good (October 26, 2005)
- To be or not to be (September 17, 2004)
- Save University Square Theater (April 1, 2005)
- Harry Potter mania sweeps Madison (November 19, 2001)
- Right blows low in euthanasia debate (February 3, 2005)
by Sam Clegg
Thursday, March 6, 2008
If you have ever watched a movie that involves an element of fantasy — any movie will do — you may be able to understand why the Campus Antiwar Network’s most recent initiative has a similar undercurrent running through its facade of goodness: the feeling of the impossible crowned with the vague halo of moral righteousness. Unlike the movies, however, CAN may find that even the best causes are not as pure as we often believe, and that gravity is not always so willing to bend over backwards for would-be protagonists.
CAN’s latest scheme is centered around its attempt to get a proposal on the Associated Students of Madison’s spring ballot that, if passed, would supposedly enable five Iraqi students to attend the University of Wisconsin while paying in-state tuition rates. When the date of the spring referendum arrives, students will vote on whether or not to raise their own tuition fees by one dollar per semester to bring the Iraqi students to Wisconsin.
Here’s where gravity kicks in: ASM has no control whatsoever over student tuition. Trenell Darby, chair of ASM’s elections committee, made it clear the Board of Regents is the body with control over how much students pay for their education, so CAN’s proposal will serve as little more than UW’s own amateurish, nonbinding resolution on Iraq. Moreover, Mr. Darby also pointed out that if the past is any indicator, only five to 10 percent of the student population votes in those elections. Thus, even if through a benevolent quirk of fate, CAN’s proposal claws its way onto the ASM ballot, its validity will be negligible in the eyes of the Board of Regents.
And then there are the subtler — but no less real — moral implications of CAN’s latest move, which raises the question as to whether or not these students will be used as political fodder to further CAN’s objective of ending the war in Iraq.
Even if no seminars featuring the students are held, even if none of them are pressured to join any campus group, there is no possible way that CAN is ignorant of the potential benefits of having living testaments to the evils of war on campus. Although awareness of a problem so morally disconcerting as the war in Iraq is by no means a detestable objective, the proposal is premised on the notion that there is no better way to spend the money CAN will supposedly raise. From raising tuition to rescue low-income Wisconsin residents from financial ruin to purchasing medical care for innocent victims napalmed during the Vietnam War, equally valid charitable objectives abound.
However, no matter how just the cause, increasing tuition for what is strictly a charitable objective is an inadequate justification for imposing a good deed on others. The entire notion of charity is founded on the basic principle that donations of time and money are given willingly, not through any form of coercion. CAN’s ignorance of that fact is another point at which — at least in the realm of moral reality — its proposal falls short. If CAN would like the Board of Regents to raise tuition, it must demonstrate a clear educational benefit to the vast majority of the campus — bringing in five students, no matter how deserving, will not suffice — or otherwise turn to the fertile plains of private donations to accomplish its objective.
Attempting to raise tuition with no educational benefit to those whose tuition will be raised reeks of a plea for ideological favoritism. More significantly, as these self-appointed protagonists may learn with regard to ASM’s inability to raise tuition rates, even the most noble of ideas can be dashed to pieces on the unyielding intransigence of the real world.
Sam Clegg (sclegg@badgerherald.com) is a freshman majoring in political science and economics.
Anonymous (March 6, 2008 @ 1:39am):
This is strange. I think students for the most part understand that they are not voting whether or not to raise tuition -- they are voting to indicate whether or not they would be willing to pay an extra two dollars a year to create a scholarship fund for a number of Iraqi students. However, it may be true that a few students are unaware that this is not a mandate, but a statement of willingness. If so, they need to be educated on what the referendum does and intends. But the limitations of an ASM referendum are not reason to object to such an altruistic undertaking. Sending a clear message to the Board of Regents on this issue can be a powerful statement that may lead to helping real people who deserve it.
Further, you raise the spurious point that this referendum is premised on the idea that there is no better way to spend this money. No. It's premised on the fact that we are at part responsible for the condition of higher education in Iraq, and thusly, we should help a few Iraqi students. You may be unware of this, but there is a well established financial assistance program for low income students. There are also myriad scholarships and grants for low income and minority students, in state and out.
Further, forget this silly idea that CAN will parade these Iraqi students around like some sort of political ploy, and instead consider that there are real, live Iraqi students that not only need but deserve the help of US institutions of higher learning. Why bother with frivolous columns that point out the obvious, while attacking the idea of helping those who we have caused to be in need? As you point out, logistical issues remain, but this is something that can be and should be done by US colleges and universities.
This sort of critique is petty, and offers no reason not to vote yes on such a referendum.
Your Fellow Columnist
Gerald Cox
Anonymous (March 6, 2008 @ 3:22am):
"You may be unware of this, but there is a well established financial assistance program for low income students. There are also myriad scholarships and grants for low income and minority students, in state and out. "
That's a really shitty low-blow Cox. I'd expect more from you. Seriously.
The problem Cox, is these programs are not NEARLY funded enough.
Keep the money at home. Well intended, CAN, but not good policy.
Anonymous (March 6, 2008 @ 3:25am):
Ditto what Gerald said.
Anonymous (March 6, 2008 @ 6:18am):
Ditto 3:22, minus the profanity. It's low to attack a fellow columnist like that.
Additionally, if CAN was so concerned about the plight of disadvantaged students, why not extend this 'scholarship' to citizens of Sudan, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Burma, and myriad dictatorships? At least Iraq is slowly becoming a more free country.
Anonymous (March 6, 2008 @ 8:09am):
Leftist-fascists at the Campus Antiwar Network deserve every ounce of ridicule intelligent folks can muster.
Bravo, Sam.
Anonymous (March 6, 2008 @ 9:53am):
"forget this silly idea that CAN will parade these Iraqi students around like some sort of political ploy"
Why forget it? So it will seem a surprise when it happens? Political ploys is what CAN is all about.
They aren't just anti-war, they're on the other side.
Anonymous (March 6, 2008 @ 12:12pm):
No low blow intended, by the "You may be unaware." I gathered from this column that he was unaware such extensive programs exist. I am unsure as to how this can be considered insulting, but I certainly meant no harm by it.
I have yet to hear a valid critique of the points I made, and in particular in response to the supposed low blow paragraph. To use low income Wisconsin students as a reason not to fund such a referendum who helps others is silly, short sighted, and denies the realities of the financial assistance programs we already have in place. Do I wish there was more? Certainly. Maybe I wouldn't have had to work four jobs to get to my senior year. But they are there, well funded, and fairly effective.
Further, the university makes it a habit of aiding people other than low income Wisconsin students. Having and helping other people attend school here is part of being a world class university.
Your Fellow Columnist,
Gerald Cox
Anonymous (March 6, 2008 @ 12:21pm):
3:22 and 6:18,
I completely disagree. It is incumbent upon columnists and editors to ensure the quality of this newspaper and Gerald is furthering that goal by commenting on this column.
Gerald's point is well taken and interpreting his comment as an "attack" is hardly within the spirit of Gerald's general demeanor. However, and more importantly, pointing to logical inconsistencies and factual errors within Sam's column is precisely the role of a columnist to fulfill. If anything, Gerald would have been negligent in failing to do so.
If Sam doesn't feel up to attacks on the quality of his writing, his logical reasoning and otherwise, being a columnist just simply isn't for him. That's part and parcel to being a columnist and everyone who writes for the Herald and the Cardinal has had to pay their dues.
Gerald, keep up the good work.
Your Fellow Columnist,
Robert Phansalkar
Anonymous (March 6, 2008 @ 2:01pm):
First of all,
Apologies to Jason and Andy. I know you will probably be aggravated for my responding on this comment board, and I take full responsbility for it.
I will attempt to address Gerald's points as he made them.
1. I apologize for the redundancy of my first paragraph. My aim, as Gerald highlighted, was to indicate to students who are perhaps not very familiar with the tuition system that an ASM vote has minimal impact on actual tuition policy. While I stressed the point too much, CAN's attempt to utilise ASM as a means of advocating their position is absurd, because when they make their appeal to the Board of Regents, a referendum in which 5-10% of the campus voted is a shabby justification for raising tuition. The issue should be taken up with the Board of Regents themselves, as ASM has no role whatsoever in the process. CAN could also hold an independent referendum - Obviously there is student support. Either way, ASM should not have been involved.
2. There is a solid tuition assistance program in place here at UW. The insinuation that I am unaware of it is quite frankly absurd, although far from insulting. No harm done Gerald.
However, these programs require constant maintenance. Students are graduating with massive tuition debt - it makes sense to concentrate on them first. Additionally, the argument that we as Americans have an obligation to help the Iraqi people, while perhaps valid, neglects far more practical aims that a tuition raise could go towards. I left this out of the article because I didn't think it was relevant to my point - I still don't think it is - but bringing an Iraqi professor to campus would be a valid use of a tuition raise - it has educational value to those from whom money is being requested.
3. I never, at any point, suggested that CAN would inevitably use these students as political pawns through speeches and the like. Such an assertion is patently untrue, although I think it is fair to say that CAN would not object to their services. The argument stands - it is not in any way "silly" to put forward the possibility, read, possibility, that there is a degree of self-interest in CAN's referendum, and that CAN is aware of it. On this point, I apologize if anyone believed I was stating that CAN would inevitably parade these students down state street in order to drum up opposition to the war.
To Robert and others,
Thank you for clarifying. While I am grateful for the previous responses defending my position, I am more than willing to bear criticism from columnists and students alike. I am sure we can agree that this willingness to accept justified criticism from anyone concerned enough to offer it is a sacrifice worth making in order to write for a paper such as this one or the Cardinal.
Sincerely,
Sam Clegg
Anonymous (March 6, 2008 @ 2:30pm):
6:18 Cuba has one of the best education system in the world, otherwise I would support supporting the students there for that is the only country that we are equally responsible for domestically destroying. We are directly responsible for the plight of these Iraqi's, if you agree with this war or not the state of Iraq's education system is worse now than it was under Sadam as a direct result of our intervention. WIthout our intervention these kids would be going to school in Iraq. Are there other in areas in the world that need a lot of help, of course, should that stop us from helping these Iraqi's, whose plight we are directly responsible for, absolutely not.
Anonymous (March 6, 2008 @ 2:50pm):
Hey 2:30!
Imagine, Mike Moore posting on the BH!
Anonymous (March 6, 2008 @ 3:48pm):
Sam's blithering about equally charitable objectives is bizarre. If it is valid charity to bring Iraqis displaced by the war here, why would it be any different than Vietnamese medical aid, etc? Just because there are other valid charities doesn't disqualify this one.
I think the implicit line of argument here is that the United States is not responsible for the state of Iraqi refugees, which is clearly a fantasy. The US has essentially destroyed an entire country, and it will take a good deal more than bringing five students here to wash that blood from our hands.
Anonymous (March 6, 2008 @ 4:17pm):
"I have yet to hear a valid critique of the points I made"
Don't worry Gerald, its only because I havent commented yet
In response to your first paragraph: The point Sam was making was not that the referendum might not be a step in the process to make the idea happen. Just that reality is that CAN and ASM can hold all the referendums they want, but the issue of whether or not the idea actually happens is entirely in the control of the Board of Regents and in the grand scheme of things even a successful referendum would be a relatively insignificant step.
Next you do a good job are articulating why helping Iraqi students is justified charitable cause, however, just because giving one's money to a charitable cause is a good idea doesn't mean it should always be done, there is opportunity cost to be considered. Obviously we can't fund every worthwhile charitable cause with tuition increases, so we should choose those that we do carefully in order to maximize effectiveness of our donations. I have yet to hear anyone, including CAN and yourself, clearly articulate why this is more worthwhile than a number of other potential projects. If the goal is to help students who don't have access to higher education then someone should be able to make the case for why paying to send Iraqi students to school here is more worthwhile than helping disadvantaged Wisconsin students. If the goal is to help the Iraqi higher education system then the case should be made for why bringing Iraqi students here does that and why that would be better than say bringing an Iraqi professor here to teach for a year or two or investing in a UW study abroad or research facility in Iraq once the situation stabilizes.
You also don't respond to the argument that Sam makes that our tuition dollars should be spent to support the mission of the University, namely education. Bringing 5 students here, while it may be a worthwhile cause, does not contribute to the education of students. While hundreds of UW students may befriend them, if they choose not to talk about the Iraq war, how do they contribute to the educational environment more than any other international student? If this cause has so much support as you and CAN seem to think then it shouldn't be too hard to solicit donations from students, faculty and alumni. Compare that to the amount of money that other departments in the university and the historical left wing political activism on campus can raise, say 800 $100 donations from alumni or even all $80,000 from someone who wants to create a scholarship to put their name on.
Anonymous (March 6, 2008 @ 4:51pm):
THanks Sam for writing about this. They need to reevaluate the thinking as things change with time Theres also a major global protest going on called world against war http://www.worldagainstwar.org
Anonymous (March 6, 2008 @ 8:53pm):
I dont get the logical connection between "the US is responsible for Iraqi refugees" and "we should raise tuition to help pay for it" if anything shouldn't the federal government be sponsoring this kind of scholarship? I'm sure a letter to your Congressman could get this added to some pork barrel spending bill, I mean what is 80K to the federal government anyways...
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
