Showing posts with label UW. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UW. Show all posts
Reading of Bill Ayers' statement on Cheney Plaza
Several students staged a reading of Bill Ayers' statement, "Doublespeak at the University of Wyoming" this Friday. I happened to walk by, camera phone in hand.
Not all students wanted this event cancelled and are speaking up.
Doublespeak at the University of Wyoming
Doublespeak at the University of Wyoming
William Ayers, University of Illinois at Chicago
William Ayers, University of Illinois at Chicago
April 5, 2010 10:13 AM MDT
On March 30, 2010, officials at the University of Wyoming, citing “security threats” and “controversy,” canceled two talks I was invited to give in early April, one a public lecture entitled “Trudge Toward Freedom: Moral Commitment and Ethical Action,” and the other, a talk to faculty and graduate students called “Teaching and Research in the Public Interest: Solidarity and Identity.” I’d been invited in August, 2009, but one week before I was to travel to Laramie, I was told I had been “disinvited.”
In February, as the University began to publicize my scheduled visit, a campaign to rescind the invitation was initiated on right-wing blogs, accelerating quickly to a wider space where a demonizing and dishonest narrative dominated all discussion. A wave of hateful messages and death threats hit the University, and was joined soon enough by a few political leaders and wealthy donors instructing officials in ominous tones to cancel my visit to the campus. On March 28 an administrator wrote to tell me that the University was receiving vicious e-mails and threatening letters, as well as promises of physical disruption were I to show up. This is becoming drearily familiar to me, as I’ll explain.
A particularly despicable note from Frank Smith who lives in Cheyenne and is active in the Wyoming Patriot Alliance, said, “Maybe someone could take him out and show him the Matthew Sheppard (sic) Commerative (sic) Fence and he could bless it or something.” He was referring to Matthew Shepard, the young gay man who was tortured and murdered in 1998, left to die tied to a storm fence outside Laramie.
Republican candidate for Governor Ron Micheli released a letter he’d sent to all members of the University of Wyoming Board of Trustees asking them to rescind the invitation. Matt Mead, another gubernatorial candidate, said through a press release that while he is a self-described “fervent believer in free speech and the free exchange of ideas,” that still allowing me to speak would be “reprehensible.” He concluded that I should have “no place lecturing our students.”
I sympathized with the University, and told the folks I was in touch with how sorry I was that all of this was happening to them. I also said that I thought it was a bit of a tempest in a tea pot, and that it would surely pass. Certainly no matter what a couple of thugs threatened to do, I said, I thought that Wyoming law enforcement could get me to the podium, and I would handle myself from there, as I do elsewhere. I said I thought we should stand together and refuse to accede to these kinds of pressures to demonize someone and suppress students’ right to freely engage in open dialogue. After all a public university is not the personal fiefdom or the political clubhouse of the governor, and donors are not permitted to call the shots when it comes to the content or conduct of academic matters. We should not allow ourselves to collapse in fear if a small mob gathers with torches at the gates. I wouldn’t force myself on the University, of course, but I felt that canceling would be terribly unfair to the faculty and students who had invited me, and would send a big message that bullying works. It would be another step down the slippery slope of giving up on the precious ideal of a free university in a free society.
No good. On March 30, 2010 the University posted an announcement of the cancellation of my visit with a long and rambling comment from President Tom Buchanan. He begins with the obligatory assertion that academic freedom is a core principle of the University, but quickly adds that “freedom requires a commensurate dose of responsibility.” We are charged to enact free speech and thought “in concert with mutual respect.”
Much of what we call schooling forecloses or shuts down or walls off meaningful choice-making. Much of it is based on obedience and conformity, the hallmarks of every authoritarian regime. Much of it banishes the unpopular, squirms in the presence of the unorthodox, hides the unpleasant. There’s no space for skepticism, irreverence, or even doubt. While many long for an education that is transcendent and powerful, we find ourselves too-often locked in situations that reduce schooling to a kind of glorified clerking that passes along a curriculum of received wisdom and predigested and often false bits of information. This is a recipe for disaster in the long run.
In February, as the University began to publicize my scheduled visit, a campaign to rescind the invitation was initiated on right-wing blogs, accelerating quickly to a wider space where a demonizing and dishonest narrative dominated all discussion. A wave of hateful messages and death threats hit the University, and was joined soon enough by a few political leaders and wealthy donors instructing officials in ominous tones to cancel my visit to the campus. On March 28 an administrator wrote to tell me that the University was receiving vicious e-mails and threatening letters, as well as promises of physical disruption were I to show up. This is becoming drearily familiar to me, as I’ll explain.
A particularly despicable note from Frank Smith who lives in Cheyenne and is active in the Wyoming Patriot Alliance, said, “Maybe someone could take him out and show him the Matthew Sheppard (sic) Commerative (sic) Fence and he could bless it or something.” He was referring to Matthew Shepard, the young gay man who was tortured and murdered in 1998, left to die tied to a storm fence outside Laramie.
Republican candidate for Governor Ron Micheli released a letter he’d sent to all members of the University of Wyoming Board of Trustees asking them to rescind the invitation. Matt Mead, another gubernatorial candidate, said through a press release that while he is a self-described “fervent believer in free speech and the free exchange of ideas,” that still allowing me to speak would be “reprehensible.” He concluded that I should have “no place lecturing our students.”
I sympathized with the University, and told the folks I was in touch with how sorry I was that all of this was happening to them. I also said that I thought it was a bit of a tempest in a tea pot, and that it would surely pass. Certainly no matter what a couple of thugs threatened to do, I said, I thought that Wyoming law enforcement could get me to the podium, and I would handle myself from there, as I do elsewhere. I said I thought we should stand together and refuse to accede to these kinds of pressures to demonize someone and suppress students’ right to freely engage in open dialogue. After all a public university is not the personal fiefdom or the political clubhouse of the governor, and donors are not permitted to call the shots when it comes to the content or conduct of academic matters. We should not allow ourselves to collapse in fear if a small mob gathers with torches at the gates. I wouldn’t force myself on the University, of course, but I felt that canceling would be terribly unfair to the faculty and students who had invited me, and would send a big message that bullying works. It would be another step down the slippery slope of giving up on the precious ideal of a free university in a free society.
No good. On March 30, 2010 the University posted an announcement of the cancellation of my visit with a long and rambling comment from President Tom Buchanan. He begins with the obligatory assertion that academic freedom is a core principle of the University, but quickly adds that “freedom requires a commensurate dose of responsibility.” We are charged to enact free speech and thought “in concert with mutual respect.”
Nothing that I did or said in this matter was disrespectful or irresponsible, and yet, in the absence of specific references, readers are led to imagine all kinds of offenses.
The announcement is punctuated with a deep defensiveness: anyone who thinks the University “caved in to external pressure,” Buchanan writes, would be “incorrect.” Anticipating what any casual observer would conclude, he builds a strained and somewhat desperate counter-narrative. Buchanan pleads that UW is “one of the few institutions remaining in today’s environment that garners the confidence of the public,” and that a speech by me would somehow undermine that confidence.
He concludes that “this episode illustrated an opportunity to hear and critically evaluate a variety of ideas thoughtfully, through open, reasoned, and civil debate, it also demonstrates that we must be mindful of the real consequences our actions and decisions have on others.” That’s some sentence, and while it’s impossible to know definitively what he’s referring to as the “episode” (it might be the public lecture itself, but then it could be the cancellation of the lecture, or even the barbarians at the gates threatening to burn the place down, or withhold funds, that would provide the opportunity to critically evaluate matters). It has an unmistakable Orwellian ring: we cancelled that lecture as an expression of our support for lectures! And it’s eerily similar to the classics: We destroyed that village in order to save it! Work will make you free! War is peace!
One of the truly weird qualities of the Buchanan statement is a hole in its center, the deafening silence concerning why the campaign against me was organized in the first place. The reason is familiar to me as noted: in the 1960’s I was a leader of the militant anti-war group, Students for a Democratic Society, and then a founder of the Weather Underground, an organization that carried out dramatic symbolic attacks against several monuments to war and racism, crossed lines of legality, of propriety, and perhaps even of common sense. And then during the 2008 presidential I was unwittingly and unwillingly thrust upon the stage because I had known—like thousands of others—Barack Obama in Chicago. The infamous charge that the candidate was “pallin' around with terrorists,” designed to injure Obama, also demonized me. I’ve been an educator and professor for decades, but the hard right has accelerated the lunacy against thousands of folks— activists and artists, academics and theorists, outspoken radical thinkers—and wherever possible mounted campaigns exactly like the one in Wyoming. Often university officials stand up on principle and resist the howling mob, as they did recently at St. Mary’s in California; sometimes—as at a student-run conference at the University of Pittsburgh in March—they compromise, restricting access to talks and surrounding a speaker with unwanted and unnecessary police protection; sometimes, as in this case, the university turns and runs. It’s a sad sight.
The announcement is punctuated with a deep defensiveness: anyone who thinks the University “caved in to external pressure,” Buchanan writes, would be “incorrect.” Anticipating what any casual observer would conclude, he builds a strained and somewhat desperate counter-narrative. Buchanan pleads that UW is “one of the few institutions remaining in today’s environment that garners the confidence of the public,” and that a speech by me would somehow undermine that confidence.
He concludes that “this episode illustrated an opportunity to hear and critically evaluate a variety of ideas thoughtfully, through open, reasoned, and civil debate, it also demonstrates that we must be mindful of the real consequences our actions and decisions have on others.” That’s some sentence, and while it’s impossible to know definitively what he’s referring to as the “episode” (it might be the public lecture itself, but then it could be the cancellation of the lecture, or even the barbarians at the gates threatening to burn the place down, or withhold funds, that would provide the opportunity to critically evaluate matters). It has an unmistakable Orwellian ring: we cancelled that lecture as an expression of our support for lectures! And it’s eerily similar to the classics: We destroyed that village in order to save it! Work will make you free! War is peace!
One of the truly weird qualities of the Buchanan statement is a hole in its center, the deafening silence concerning why the campaign against me was organized in the first place. The reason is familiar to me as noted: in the 1960’s I was a leader of the militant anti-war group, Students for a Democratic Society, and then a founder of the Weather Underground, an organization that carried out dramatic symbolic attacks against several monuments to war and racism, crossed lines of legality, of propriety, and perhaps even of common sense. And then during the 2008 presidential I was unwittingly and unwillingly thrust upon the stage because I had known—like thousands of others—Barack Obama in Chicago. The infamous charge that the candidate was “pallin' around with terrorists,” designed to injure Obama, also demonized me. I’ve been an educator and professor for decades, but the hard right has accelerated the lunacy against thousands of folks— activists and artists, academics and theorists, outspoken radical thinkers—and wherever possible mounted campaigns exactly like the one in Wyoming. Often university officials stand up on principle and resist the howling mob, as they did recently at St. Mary’s in California; sometimes—as at a student-run conference at the University of Pittsburgh in March—they compromise, restricting access to talks and surrounding a speaker with unwanted and unnecessary police protection; sometimes, as in this case, the university turns and runs. It’s a sad sight.
Of course I wasn’t invited to speak about any of this, and it’s unlikely any of it would have come up without the active campaigning and noisy thunder from the relatively tiny group that is the ultra-right.
I would have focused my talk on the unique characteristics of education in a democracy, an enterprise that rests on the twin pillars of enlightenment and liberation, knowledge and human freedom. Education engages dynamic questions of morality and ethics, identity and location, agency and action. We want to know more, to see more, to experience more in order to do more—to be more competent and powerful and capable in our projects and our pursuits, to be more astute and aware and wide-awake, more fully engaged in the world that we inherit, the world we are simultaneously destined to change.
I would have focused my talk on the unique characteristics of education in a democracy, an enterprise that rests on the twin pillars of enlightenment and liberation, knowledge and human freedom. Education engages dynamic questions of morality and ethics, identity and location, agency and action. We want to know more, to see more, to experience more in order to do more—to be more competent and powerful and capable in our projects and our pursuits, to be more astute and aware and wide-awake, more fully engaged in the world that we inherit, the world we are simultaneously destined to change.
To deny students the right to question the circumstances of their lives, and to wonder how they might be otherwise, is to deny democracy itself.
It’s reasonable to assume that education in a democracy is distinct from education under a dictatorship or a monarchy; surely school leaders in fascist Germany or Albania or Saudi Arabia or apartheid South Africa all agreed, for example, that students should behave well, stay away from drugs and crime, do their homework, study hard, and master the subject matters; they also graduated fine scientists and musicians and athletes, so none of those things differentiate a democratic education from any other.
It’s reasonable to assume that education in a democracy is distinct from education under a dictatorship or a monarchy; surely school leaders in fascist Germany or Albania or Saudi Arabia or apartheid South Africa all agreed, for example, that students should behave well, stay away from drugs and crime, do their homework, study hard, and master the subject matters; they also graduated fine scientists and musicians and athletes, so none of those things differentiate a democratic education from any other.
What makes education in a democracy, at least theoretically, distinct is a commitment to a particularly precious and fragile ideal: every human being is of infinite and incalculable value, each a unique intellectual, emotional, physical, spiritual, and creative force. Every human being is born free and equal in dignity and rights; each is endowed with reason and conscience, and deserves, then, a sense of solidarity, brotherhood and sisterhood, recognition and respect. Democracy is geared toward participation and engagement, and that points to an educational system in which the fullest development of all is seen as the necessary condition for the full development of each, and conversely, that the fullest development of each is necessary for the full development of all.
In a vibrant and participatory democracy, we might conclude that whatever the wisest and most privileged parents want for their children is precisely the baseline and standard for what the wider community wants for all of its children. If children of privilege get to have small classes, abundant resources, and a curriculum based on opportunities to experiment and explore, ask questions and pursue answers to the furthest limit, if the Obama kids, for example, attend such a school, one where they also find a respected and unionized teacher corps, shouldn’t that be good enough for the kids in public schools everywhere? Any other ideal for our schools, in John Dewey’s words, “is narrow and unlovely; acted upon it destroys our democracy.”
We want our students to be able to think for themselves, to make judgments based on evidence and argument, to develop minds of their own. We want them to ask fundamental questions—who in the world am I? How did I get here and where am I going? What in the world are my choices? How in the world shall I proceed?—and to pursue answers wherever they might take them. Our efforts focus not on the production of things so much as on the production of fully developed human beings who are capable of controlling and transforming their own lives, citizens who can participate fully in civic life.
Teaching in a democracy encourages students to develop initiative and imagination, the capacity to name the world, to identify the obstacles to their full humanity, and the courage to act upon whatever the known demands. Education in a democracy is always about opening doors and opening minds as students forge their own pathways into a wider world.
How do our schools at every level—K-16—measure up to the democratic ideal?
Much of what we call schooling forecloses or shuts down or walls off meaningful choice-making. Much of it is based on obedience and conformity, the hallmarks of every authoritarian regime. Much of it banishes the unpopular, squirms in the presence of the unorthodox, hides the unpleasant. There’s no space for skepticism, irreverence, or even doubt. While many long for an education that is transcendent and powerful, we find ourselves too-often locked in situations that reduce schooling to a kind of glorified clerking that passes along a curriculum of received wisdom and predigested and often false bits of information. This is a recipe for disaster in the long run.
Educators, students, and citizens must press for an education worthy of a democracy, including an end to sorting people into winners and losers through expensive standardized tests which act as pseudo-scientific forms of surveillance; an end to starving public schools—including public higher education—of needed resources and then blaming teachers for dismal outcomes; and an end to the rapidly accumulating “educational debt,” the resources due to communities historically segregated, under-funded and under-served. All children and youth in a democracy, regardless of economic circumstance, deserve full access to richly-resourced classrooms led by caring, qualified and generously compensated teachers.
We might try now to create open spaces in our schools and our various communities where we expect fresh and startling winds to blow, unaccustomed winds that are sure to electrify and confound and fascinate us. We begin by throwing open the windows. We declare that in this corner of this place—in this open space we are constructing together—people will begin to experience themselves as powerful authors of their own narratives, actors in their own dramas, the essential architects and creators of their own lives, participants in a dynamic and inter-connected community-in-the-making. Here they will discover a zillion ways to articulate their own desires and demands and questions. Here everyone will live in search of rather than in accordance with or in accommodation to. Here we will join one another and our democratic futures can be born.
A primary job of teachers and scholars and journalists, and a responsibility of all engaged citizens, is to challenge orthodoxy, dogma, and mindless complacency, to be skeptical of all authoritative claims, to interrogate and trouble the given and the taken-for-granted. The growth of knowledge, insight, and understanding depends on that kind of effort, and the inevitable clash of ideas that follows must be nourished and not crushed.
As campuses contract and constrain, the main victims becomes truth, honesty, integrity, curiosity, imagination, freedom itself. When college campuses fall silent, other victims include the high school history teacher on the west side of Chicago or in Laramie or Cheyenne, the English literature teacher in Detroit, or the math teacher in an Oakland middle school. They and countless others immediately get the message: be careful what you say; stay close to the official story; stick to the authorized text; keep quiet with your head covered.
In Brecht’s play Galileo the great astronomer set forth into a world dominated by a mighty church and an authoritarian power: “The cities are narrow and so are the brains,” he declared recklessly. Intoxicated with his own insights, Galileo found himself propelled toward revolution. Not only did his radical discoveries about the movement of the stars free them from the “crystal vault” that received truth insistently claimed fastened them to the sky, but his insights suggested something even more dangerous: that we, too, are embarked on a great voyage, that we are free and without the easy support that dogma provides. Here Galileo raised the stakes and risked taking on the establishment in the realm of its own authority, and it struck back fiercely. Forced to renounce his life’s work under the exquisite pressure of the Inquisition, he denounced what he knew to be true, and was welcomed back into the church and the ranks of the faithful, but exiled from humanity—by his own word. A former student confronted him in the street then: “Many on all sides followed you…believing that you stood, not only for a particular view of the movement of the stars, but even more for the liberty of teaching— in all fields. Not then for any particular thoughts, but for the right to think at all. Which is in dispute.”
This is surely in play today: the right to talk to whomever you please, the right to read and wonder, the right to pursue an argument into uncharted spaces, the right to challenge the state or the church and its orthodoxy in the public square. The right to think at all.
This is some of what I would have discussed in Wyoming, but that will not happen, at least not this week. Canceling this talk underlines the urgency of having multiple and far-ranging speeches, dialogue, and discussions at every level and throughout the public square.
(Article reprinted at the request of the author)
Memorial service scheduled for UW professor
Memorial service scheduled for UW professor
Meg Lanker
Monday, January 10, 2010 7:11 PM MDT
Meg Lanker
Monday, January 10, 2010 7:11 PM MDT
The service is scheduled for 6 p.m. at the University of Wyoming Art Museum in the Centennial Complex, at 2111 Willett Drive. Zamudio died Dec. 25th at her home.
According to a UW news release, Zamudio joined the UW faculty in 2002 and taught in the Sociology, Women's Studies, and Chicano Studies departments. She received tenure in spring 2009.
Zamudio taught several classes at UW focusing on issues of race, immigration, social justice, and gender relations.
Her book, "Critical Race Theory in Education" will be published later this year by Routledge.
A scholarship has been established in her name. Contributions to the Margie Zamudio Memorial Fund can be made at the UniWyo Federal Credit Union in Laramie.
The University of Wyoming released a full obituary for Zamudio Monday:
Dr. Margaret "Margie" Zamudio passed away Dec. 25, 2009. She was 45 years old.
Margie was born in Los Angeles in 1964. She attended UCLA as both an undergraduate and graduate student where she received her B.A. in 1989, her M.A. in 1991 and her Ph.D. in 1996, all in sociology. Margie taught at the University of Colorado at Boulder from 1996-2002 and came to the University of Wyoming in 2002. She taught in the Department of Sociology as well as the Chicano Studies and Women's Studies programs. Margie received tenure at UW in the spring of 2009.
Margie's advocacy and scholarship on issues of social justice, immigration, race, class and gender provided inspiration to many of her friends, colleagues and students. Her book on Critical Race Theory in Education will be published by Routledge in late 2010. Just before she died, Margie was researching the socioeconomic forces behind the immigration of El Salvadorian women in the 1950s and 60s. Her passion and devotion for social justice and racial equality will be greatly missed at UW.
Margie loved the outdoors. The mountains around Happy Jack had a special place in Margie's heart. Margie was an avid cross country skier and mountain biker. She also loved camping in the Medicine Bow Mountains -- the North Fork of the Little Laramie in particular. Margie is survived by her many family, friends and students who will greatly miss her intelligence, compassion, and wonderful sense of humor. Margie will be especially missed by her dog Harley.
A public Memorial Service for Margie will be held Friday, Jan. 15, at 6 p.m. at the University of Wyoming Art Museum in the American Heritage Center at 2111 Willett Drive, Laramie.
In lieu of flowers, well wishers are encouraged to donate to the Margie Zamudio Memorial Fund at the UniWyo Federal Credit Union in Laramie. The proceeds of this fund will create a scholarship in Margie's name.
UW professor found dead outside home
Photo: UW Associate Professor Margaret Zamudio, from Department of Sociology website, University of Wyoming
UW professor found dead outside home
Meg Lanker
Monday, December 28, 2009 1:21 PM MDT
A popular professor at the University of Wyoming has died.
Laramie resident Margaret "Margie" Zamudio, 45, was found dead outside her home Saturday after a concerned resident called police shortly after noon after seeing boots outside of a snowdrift. Authorities discovered Zamudio's body outside her home at approximately 12:30 p.m.
According to Commander Mitchell Cushman of the Laramie Police Department, authorities do not believe any foul play was involved and Zamudio's death appears to be accidental. "We believe she stepped outside at some point, slipped and became unconscious. Due to the weather conditions, she most likely froze to death," he said.
On Friday and Saturday, temperatures in Laramie dipped into the single digits with wind chills as low as -20°F. Cushman said extreme winter weather conditions of this type can quickly take a toll on an individual.
Cushman said the investigation is ongoing and toxicology results could take six to eight weeks.
University of Wyoming President Tom Buchanan released a statement Monday. "I know I speak for the University of Wyoming community when I say we’re all saddened by Margaret’s death; we will all miss her and her contributions to UW very much," he said.
Zamudio was an associate professor at UW and taught several classes, specializing in Chicano studies and social inequality. According to the UW Department of Sociology's website, she was beginning research "examining the political economy of pre-1960's gendered migration to the U.S. with an emphasis on Salvadoran women."
She received her doctorate from the University of California in 1996 and focused her research on issues of immigration and labor, on race, class, and gender, and on critical race studies in education.
UW professor found dead outside home
Meg Lanker
Monday, December 28, 2009 1:21 PM MDT
A popular professor at the University of Wyoming has died.
Laramie resident Margaret "Margie" Zamudio, 45, was found dead outside her home Saturday after a concerned resident called police shortly after noon after seeing boots outside of a snowdrift. Authorities discovered Zamudio's body outside her home at approximately 12:30 p.m.
According to Commander Mitchell Cushman of the Laramie Police Department, authorities do not believe any foul play was involved and Zamudio's death appears to be accidental. "We believe she stepped outside at some point, slipped and became unconscious. Due to the weather conditions, she most likely froze to death," he said.
On Friday and Saturday, temperatures in Laramie dipped into the single digits with wind chills as low as -20°F. Cushman said extreme winter weather conditions of this type can quickly take a toll on an individual.
Cushman said the investigation is ongoing and toxicology results could take six to eight weeks.
University of Wyoming President Tom Buchanan released a statement Monday. "I know I speak for the University of Wyoming community when I say we’re all saddened by Margaret’s death; we will all miss her and her contributions to UW very much," he said.
Zamudio was an associate professor at UW and taught several classes, specializing in Chicano studies and social inequality. According to the UW Department of Sociology's website, she was beginning research "examining the political economy of pre-1960's gendered migration to the U.S. with an emphasis on Salvadoran women."
She received her doctorate from the University of California in 1996 and focused her research on issues of immigration and labor, on race, class, and gender, and on critical race studies in education.
Health care panels scheduled for tonight
Health care panels scheduled for tonightWyoming health care professionals and students will debate reform
Meg Lanker
Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:21 PM MDT
Southeast Wyoming residents will get two chances today to find out how health care reform could affect them.
According to a news release from the Wyoming Democratic Party, local health care professionals will discuss health care reform at a panel at Laramie County Community College Center for Conferences and Institutes.
The panel is scheduled for 7 p.m. and will include Wyoming Department of Health Director Dr. Brent Sherard; Lorraine Saulino-Klein, RN; and Mary Forrester, FNP. Other healthcare professionals will also attend and discuss what reform will mean for Wyoming residents and how it can impact Wyoming.
“No one knows more about the urgent need for health insurance reform than those who work within the health care system every day,” said Wyoming Democratic Party Executive Director Bill Luckett in the release. “It is important that we have the opportunity to hear their perspective.”
Wyoming Democratic Party Vice Chair Mike Bell will moderate the discussion and a short question and answer period following the panel’s comments.
Elsewhere in the state, the University of Wyoming College Democrats and College Republicans will hold a debate regarding health care reform and the issues surrounding various proposed bills.
The debate is scheduled for 6 p.m. at the Wyoming Union West Ballroom and will also feature a question and answer session afterwards. The College Democrats invited the College Republicans to debate in the interest of having a bipartisan view on health care presented.
Both clubs are aiming to educate Wyoming residents and UW students about the concerns surrounding health care reform. In pre-debate meetings, College Republicans president Caitlin Wallace and College Democrats president Dana Walton both said they wished to see a civil, enlightening debate.
Laramie resident and activist Matt Stannard will blog live during the debate at theunderview.blogspot.com and will follow with commentary on the debate during his nightly “Shared Sacrifice” podcast from 8-9 p.m., accessible to the public at blogtalkradio.com/shared_sacrifice.
Stannard is looking forward to liveblogging the debate. “The liveblogging serves two purposes: In addition to the important global exposure it provides for UW and the health care debate, it also serves as an opportunity for anyone and everyone to fact-check the debate,” he said. “I hope people will look over the notes I post during the debate, research the facts, and post their findings on the blog.”
According to Shared Sacrifice’s website, the daily podcast is also co-hosted by Iraq veteran Gary Barkley. The website describes the show as “progressive in nature” but emphasizes “all Americans have the right to be heard.”
Listeners are invited to call in during the podcast with their questions and comments. Stannard said the entire hour will be used to discuss the debate and health care reform. "We'll continue the conversation on tomorrow night's podcast too, if there's interest," said Stannard.
Letter to the Editor: An open letter to President Tom Buchanan
Editor:
An open letter to President Thomas Buchanan-
I am very disturbed about the fact that the University has chosen to name the new International Center after former Vice President Richard Cheney. I find this decision to be so inappropriate. I understand that money talks, but putting his name on such a place smacks of hypocrisy. He was not born here and he rarely lives here. I believe that he took up residency again only so that he could run with George Bush in that ill-fated election. A presidential and vice presidential candidate cannot be from the same state.
Doesn’t he already have enough places named after him? Why are so many people in Wyoming so proud of a person who has lied to us, has encouraged us to live in fear and has condoned the use of torture? He certainly has helped to bring down the reputation of the United States in the eyes of the world. He just doesn’t seem like a good role model for students.
I believe this to be one more smudge on the reputation of Wyoming; a reputation that is already quite sullied by past events. I am tired of defending Wyoming when I encounter people from “out there in the world.” Cheney, Matthew Shepard's death, the disparity in women and men’s income, to name but a few.
I am all for tolerance and diversity. But I don’t think that naming the building after him really speaks to tolerance and diversity. He appears to value neither.
I graduated from the University of Wyoming in the 1960s. There were certainly a lot of issues at that time. I thought we had come quite a way since. But when a situation such as this arises, I really have to wonder.
I hope that this decision will be rethought and that the Center will be named for someone really deserving of the honor; someone who has been successful in dealing in international matters and has enhanced our position in the world. We don’t have to be first or best but we do have to be principled. We haven’t been that for some time now. Dick Cheney certainly does not merit that honor.
Thank you for your attention to this letter.
Joan S. Borst
Sheridan, Wyo.
An open letter to President Thomas Buchanan-
I am very disturbed about the fact that the University has chosen to name the new International Center after former Vice President Richard Cheney. I find this decision to be so inappropriate. I understand that money talks, but putting his name on such a place smacks of hypocrisy. He was not born here and he rarely lives here. I believe that he took up residency again only so that he could run with George Bush in that ill-fated election. A presidential and vice presidential candidate cannot be from the same state.
Doesn’t he already have enough places named after him? Why are so many people in Wyoming so proud of a person who has lied to us, has encouraged us to live in fear and has condoned the use of torture? He certainly has helped to bring down the reputation of the United States in the eyes of the world. He just doesn’t seem like a good role model for students.
I believe this to be one more smudge on the reputation of Wyoming; a reputation that is already quite sullied by past events. I am tired of defending Wyoming when I encounter people from “out there in the world.” Cheney, Matthew Shepard's death, the disparity in women and men’s income, to name but a few.
I am all for tolerance and diversity. But I don’t think that naming the building after him really speaks to tolerance and diversity. He appears to value neither.
I graduated from the University of Wyoming in the 1960s. There were certainly a lot of issues at that time. I thought we had come quite a way since. But when a situation such as this arises, I really have to wonder.
I hope that this decision will be rethought and that the Center will be named for someone really deserving of the honor; someone who has been successful in dealing in international matters and has enhanced our position in the world. We don’t have to be first or best but we do have to be principled. We haven’t been that for some time now. Dick Cheney certainly does not merit that honor.
Thank you for your attention to this letter.
Joan S. Borst
Sheridan, Wyo.
Letter to the Editor: In defense of UW protest
Editor:
At the dedication of the Cheney International Center, former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson seemed to casually dismiss the 100 or so protesters present by saying, “It is easy to second-guess. It is easy to protest, takes no brains.”
I would like to remind Simpson that protest is what this great country is founded upon. Would he have said the same about those old white men who believed it was their “inalienable right” to speak their mind (with no brains) and oppose a tyrannical government? Was it easy for Martin Luther King to march on Washington or students at Kent State in Ohio to protest the Vietnam War?
I respectfully disagree with Simpson’s assessment. Every time someone stands up for what they believe in to those in power, they take a risk. Many of us who protested the Cheney International Center ceremony felt protesting was worth the possible risk of arrest or expulsion from UW.
It was incredible that someone who opposed Dick Cheney and his policies could stand next to someone who supported him without any violence or bloodshed. Sure, maybe today it is easier to protest in the United States, but in so many other countries this right is denied and severely suppressed by the government - we have only to look at recent events in China and Iran as examples.
What is “easy,” Senator Simpson, is for those in power to start unilateral wars, circumvent the Geneva Conventions, subvert the constitution, and authorize torture tactics that violate human rights treaties without any consequences. This is what takes “no brains.”
Dan DePeyer
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyo.
Editor's note: DePeyer is a University of Wyoming graduate student in the international studies program. He began the "UW Students Against the Cheney International Center" Facebook group and was instrumental in organizing the protest against the dedication Sept. 10.
At the dedication of the Cheney International Center, former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson seemed to casually dismiss the 100 or so protesters present by saying, “It is easy to second-guess. It is easy to protest, takes no brains.”
I would like to remind Simpson that protest is what this great country is founded upon. Would he have said the same about those old white men who believed it was their “inalienable right” to speak their mind (with no brains) and oppose a tyrannical government? Was it easy for Martin Luther King to march on Washington or students at Kent State in Ohio to protest the Vietnam War?
I respectfully disagree with Simpson’s assessment. Every time someone stands up for what they believe in to those in power, they take a risk. Many of us who protested the Cheney International Center ceremony felt protesting was worth the possible risk of arrest or expulsion from UW.
It was incredible that someone who opposed Dick Cheney and his policies could stand next to someone who supported him without any violence or bloodshed. Sure, maybe today it is easier to protest in the United States, but in so many other countries this right is denied and severely suppressed by the government - we have only to look at recent events in China and Iran as examples.
What is “easy,” Senator Simpson, is for those in power to start unilateral wars, circumvent the Geneva Conventions, subvert the constitution, and authorize torture tactics that violate human rights treaties without any consequences. This is what takes “no brains.”
Dan DePeyer
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyo.
Editor's note: DePeyer is a University of Wyoming graduate student in the international studies program. He began the "UW Students Against the Cheney International Center" Facebook group and was instrumental in organizing the protest against the dedication Sept. 10.
Letter to the Editor: No ethics lesson in Buchanan's words
Dear Editor:
UW President Tom Buchanan’s perspective in the Laramie Boomerang (9/5) and the Casper Star-Tribune (9/6) about the naming of the Cheney International Center sought to provide a lesson in ethics. Quite the contrary. By defending the privileges of the wealthy and powerful while admonishing those who question the fairness and legitimacy of naming an international center after former Vice-president Dick Cheney, Buchanan’s perspective conveyed much more about his own political savvy than about ethics.
So that in the future the university's position on such matters will be clear, would it be possible to set the bar high enough so a prospective donor couldn't slither over it to have his or her name honored? Or are we left with the message that there is no lower limit – that UW would institutionalize the name of the devil if the donation and political payoff were sufficient?
Fred Vanden Heede
Laramie, Wyo.
UW President Tom Buchanan’s perspective in the Laramie Boomerang (9/5) and the Casper Star-Tribune (9/6) about the naming of the Cheney International Center sought to provide a lesson in ethics. Quite the contrary. By defending the privileges of the wealthy and powerful while admonishing those who question the fairness and legitimacy of naming an international center after former Vice-president Dick Cheney, Buchanan’s perspective conveyed much more about his own political savvy than about ethics.
So that in the future the university's position on such matters will be clear, would it be possible to set the bar high enough so a prospective donor couldn't slither over it to have his or her name honored? Or are we left with the message that there is no lower limit – that UW would institutionalize the name of the devil if the donation and political payoff were sufficient?
Fred Vanden Heede
Laramie, Wyo.
Letter to the Editor: Faculty should not keep silent on Cheney donation
Editor -
I am disappointed at the tone of Dr. Tom Buchanan's perspective piece on the Cheney International Center (CIC) (Casper Star-Tribune, Sept. 6). The suggestion that people objecting to the CIC lack tolerance is a cheap shot. The fact is, campus employees almost always acquiesce when the university recognizes controversial people and institutions. We've all sat through graduation ceremonies and watched as the university lent its credibility to doubtful characters in exchange for cold hard cash. We think: "It sucks. Hopefully students will benefit. Best stay silent."
Taking money from Dick Cheney is in another league. Mr. Cheney sanctioned the kidnapping, torture and murder of political prisoners. The university is promoting the legacy of someone who, more than any other in the recent past, damaged our country's reputation abroad. Now Mr. Cheney gets to damage that of the university.
Accepting donations from the powerful is a balancing act. Most times, benefits to the institution outweigh the disadvantages of associating with people or companies with a checkered past. But sometimes the disadvantages are too big. This was one of those times. It would have resulted in heat for Dr. Buchanan. Maybe he'd have lost his job. Then again, being a university president involves more than driving a desk. It is not unreasonable to expect the odd bit of moral courage from the university's administrators.
If the university is indeed extremely grateful to the Cheney family for its philanthropy, it is peculiar it has done little to promote the dedication of the center. The rumor is that it will be on Sept. 10th at 10:30 AM on Cheney Plaza. I invite students, faculty and staff to legally and peacefully protest this decision by the university.
Donal O'Toole
Professor, Dept. of Veterinary Science
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyo.
I am disappointed at the tone of Dr. Tom Buchanan's perspective piece on the Cheney International Center (CIC) (Casper Star-Tribune, Sept. 6). The suggestion that people objecting to the CIC lack tolerance is a cheap shot. The fact is, campus employees almost always acquiesce when the university recognizes controversial people and institutions. We've all sat through graduation ceremonies and watched as the university lent its credibility to doubtful characters in exchange for cold hard cash. We think: "It sucks. Hopefully students will benefit. Best stay silent."
Taking money from Dick Cheney is in another league. Mr. Cheney sanctioned the kidnapping, torture and murder of political prisoners. The university is promoting the legacy of someone who, more than any other in the recent past, damaged our country's reputation abroad. Now Mr. Cheney gets to damage that of the university.
Accepting donations from the powerful is a balancing act. Most times, benefits to the institution outweigh the disadvantages of associating with people or companies with a checkered past. But sometimes the disadvantages are too big. This was one of those times. It would have resulted in heat for Dr. Buchanan. Maybe he'd have lost his job. Then again, being a university president involves more than driving a desk. It is not unreasonable to expect the odd bit of moral courage from the university's administrators.
If the university is indeed extremely grateful to the Cheney family for its philanthropy, it is peculiar it has done little to promote the dedication of the center. The rumor is that it will be on Sept. 10th at 10:30 AM on Cheney Plaza. I invite students, faculty and staff to legally and peacefully protest this decision by the university.
Donal O'Toole
Professor, Dept. of Veterinary Science
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyo.
Side Effects: Re-opening the Geological Museum
On June 29th, I received an anonymous, threatening email from a “concerned Wyoming alumnus.” I referenced this email a few weeks ago, but it still hangs in my mind, especially lines like, “I think you may want to think about how much you value your attendance at UW, as it would be a shame for it to come to an end.” Whoever sent me this email is concerned about the unfair coverage I have given the UW budget cuts. The Branding Iron received a similar phone call in the office. When I showed this email to President Tom Buchanan, since the writer claimed to be a good friend, he laughed, says he gets nutty emails, and didn’t think too much of it. Side effect: I laughed it off as well, but still look behind my back when I walk in the dark.It will take more than anonymous threats to keep me from expressing my opinion about these cuts. Emails I receive continue to catch my attention. A few days after the anonymous email, I received a message from Lisa Stillings at University of Nevada-Reno expressing her dismay at the closure of the Geological Museum and paralleling it with cuts UNR had to make. She worked at the University of Wyoming as a researcher in the early 1990s and is still fond of the UW community. She wrote that laid off employees at UNR were given 1 year notice before they were laid off, not 20 days. I know UW had to make these cuts fast, but 20 days notice is beyond brutal, especially in the economic situation the nation finds itself in. She also wrote that “offering tours ‘by appointment only’ isn't going to work and is antithetical to the whole concept of museums and public collections.” Side effect: People beyond our borders are wondering if UW is simply apathetic to the community’s concerns.
The latest email exchange to catch my attention is between UW Provost Myron Allen and a gentleman who works for a major energy company and sits on many professional boards. He asked Allen for a specific amount needed to keep the museum open and if getting written commitments for these donations could keep it open past its July 1 closing date. Allen replied, “I appreciate your willingness to consider soliciting donations that would keep the Geology Museum open. However, I hope you'll consider directing any fundraising initiatives toward other measures – preferably those that support UW's degree-granting departments.” Then, adding salt into the wound, he further wrote, “[E]ven if permanent funds became available every dean and department head in the institution can name positions that rank more highly than those lost in the Geology Museum.” Side effect: Please, please give us money, but only for “high-ranking” positions and programs.
The recent story about our new athletic uniforms sponsored by Nike demonstrates the overwhelming callousness displayed by this administration. The administration is proudly crowing that these uniforms will make us more attractive to recruits. Athletic Director Tom Burman said, "Young people today grow up very conscious of the sports apparel they wear and the sports equipment they use. Nike is not only a company that has an outstanding reputation for the highest quality equipment, but it is the brand that recruits desire.” Recruits also desire not to suck, so here’s hoping new coach Dave Christensen is worth his $180,000 yearly salary, which could reach $750,000 with incentives, according to ESPN.com. Let’s not even talk about Nike’s “outstanding” reputation for sweatshop labor. Side effect: Wyoming’s outstanding reputation for fossils will outlast our reputation for football any day.
All this on the heels of an insulting, part-time “re-opening.” Laramie resident Chris Hume shares my displeasure with this half-measure. Hume said, “Without a director, the museum is just a storage shed. No one will be there to provide knowledge and enlightenment to the next generation about the treasures inside the Museum. A mere security guard will preside over the building, as if it were a store in a mall.” Exactly. Not only that, but the security guard is apparently a custodian pulling double-duty so the UW administration can laud themselves in the press for listening to the public’s concerns. This is unacceptable and a cheap PR move – not to mention a slap in the face to the Friends of the S.H. Knight Geological Museum and any other donors who were turned away. Side effect: If we paint a little Swoosh on Big Al, will Nike sponsor him too?
“Side Effects” by Meg Lanker runs weekly. Side effects of reading her column include possible pugnacity, umbrage, nihilism, or sagacity.
