Reading the Chronicle is interesting because you know that the administration is reading it, too, and you sometimes find ideas discussed on it that are later implemented. For example, this article talks about the Justice Brandeis Semester:

Two former college presidents, Charles Karelis of Colgate University and Stephen J. Trachtenberg of George Washington University, recently argued for the year-round university, noting that the two-semester format now in vogue places students in classrooms barely 60 percent of the year, or 30 weeks out of 52. They propose a 15-percent increase in productivity without adding buildings if students agree to study one summer and spend one semester abroad or in another site, like Washington or New York. Such a model may command attention if more education is offered without more tuition.

Furthermore, it talks about the rising costs of education, and how Universities are hurting themselves by raising tuition even more these days.

With tuitions, fees, and room and board at dozens of colleges now reaching $50,000 a year, the ability to sustain private higher education for all but the very well-heeled is questionable. According to the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, over the past 25 years, average college tuition and fees have risen by 440 percent — more than four times the rate of inflation and almost twice the rate of medical care. Patrick M. Callan, the center’s president, has warned that low-income students will find college unaffordable.

Meanwhile, the middle class, which has paid for higher education in the past mainly by taking out loans, may now be precluded from doing so as the private student-loan market has all but dried up. In addition, endowment cushions that allowed colleges to engage in steep tuition discounting are gone. Declines in housing valuations are making it difficult for families to rely on home-equity loans for college financing. Even when the equity is there, parents are reluctant to further leverage themselves into a future where job security is uncertain.

Anyways, just an interesting link between our financial troubles and the wider world.

P.S. You may have noticed that Innermost Parts has stopped posting so much during the summer. That should be expected: It’s summer vacation, and we’re not even on campus. That said, you should check our RSS feed to keep up with us during the summer. Had an interesting summer experience? Going to a progressive conference? Let us know! Write about it.

I came to this talk wanting to learn not just about Cohn-Bendit’s experiences, but what, given those experiences, the Left can learn about political and social change today. I wanted to know why we should “forget 1968.” But, even more so, a central question that always lingers in my mind: what is it that separates activism today from the 1960’s, and is there any way to bring back some of the spirit that led literally an entire generation to challenge and reject so much of the society that had been handed to them? Why is our generation so reluctant to do so? Are we better, or worse off, today?

These are tough questions, and I don’t expect that anyone will be able to answer them satisfactorily in the space of ninety minutes. However, Cohn-Bendit did not disappoint, and he managed to cover much of what interested me. I will now summarize most of his key points:

• First off, Cohn-Bendit stressed that he was not repudiating his activities in the Sixties. On the contrary, he declared: “Je ne regrette rien.” His intention in giving the speech was instead to change the context in which we frame the progress of the Left. By matching ourselves up against 1968, and by seeing in that one year all possibility, and all hope for victory, we limit ourselves. To live according to ’68 is to deny the last forty years, and to stew in nostalgia rather than face up to the realities we have to deal with today. If we don’t forget 1968, in this regard, the effect is self-defeating. (Cohn-Bendit noted, to make his point sink in, that the first time you make love, it is a wonderful experience, but if it is for the last time, then it is terrible).
• Next, he emphasized that the struggles of the Sixties were against an entirely different society that people of our generation cannot imagine. He explained that a woman in France could not open a bank account without the permission of her husband, and that homosexuality was outlawed in Germany. What people in ’68 were fighting for was ownership over their lives. Thus, the struggle was largely about individual privacy and personal autonomy.
• Cohn-Bendit then explained that the Left won their Sixties struggles in the realm of culture, but that they lost in the public sphere. The permissiveness and tolerance of contemporary society is a direct result of the activities of people like himself, but the political revolution that many demanded never happened.
• Cohn-Bendit, who during the Sixties was an anti-Soviet, anti-Marxist, left-wing libertarian anarchist, then said that in all honesty he “thanked God” that the Left failed to grab political power. He and others like himself were working to build a harmonious new society founded on the following principles: everything private is political; rational disorganization (no formal institutions); and complete egalitarianism (no hierarchical structure). Cohn-Bendit explained that he has grown to appreciate that, had these political ends been achieved, we would be in serious trouble. While his movement was reacting to totalitarian infringements on the rights of individuals, their myopic goals would indirectly open up the door to such violations by doing away with constitutional protections of the rights of minorities and by making all private matters the province of the public. As Cohn-Bendit noted, he and his comrades were reading too much Marcuse, and not enough Hannah Arendt.
• Cohn-Bendit then discussed the ugly side of Sixties student movements, condemning the militant views and actions of people who supported violent Third-World movements and leaders such as Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh. In particular, Cohn-Bendit described an incident in which members of the Red Army faction in Germany kidnapped and murdered a member of the government in the mid-1970s. We (the Left) must answer for this element of the Sixties movement – the justification of violence – or else we have no moral legitimacy with which to defend and celebrate the legacy of ’68.
• After all, there is much that was beautiful about the Sixties movement. Cohn-Bendit discusses the centrality of debate and the restless pursuit of truth that drove people to talk into the wee hours of the morning. The streets of Paris were covered in poetry and art, with slogans like “l’imagination pouvoir.” Furthermore, when both the French Communist Party and the Right wing attacked Cohn-Bendit, mass demonstrations broke out in which people chanted “We are all German Jews” (in reference to his herie and the fact that his parents survived the Holocaust). This solidarity, as Cohn-Bendit noted, is something we all could learn from. In sum, people in the Sixties felt that they were consciously influencing the course of history, which was truly remarkable.
• He then explained that things are different today, and that in many ways, it is now much more difficult to be a young person. I found this discussion to be particularly relevant. He explained the impact that HIV/AIDS, global warming, unemployment, and globalization have had. Our future is much less secure, our self-confidence much less intact than that of those who demonstrated in ’68. Cohn-Bendit stated that today “we have a closed world,” rife with fear for the future and a discouraging lack of possibilities. Instead of demanding ownership over our own lives, as people were in the 1960s, we want to delegate that ownership. Moreover, the 1960s had other ideologies that dissidents could turn to for answers and for direction (such as Communist countries and Third World liberation movements), whereas today there is virtually no established alternative paradigm for us to adopt.
• Cohn-Bendit then once more reminded the audience that we must acknowledge and condemn the militant excesses of the Sixties, while also remembering and standing up for what was positive about that era and its legacy. We cannot only remember the good things, he explained; we must draw our lessons from both the good and the bad. Either way, it is important that we not continue to fight over the nature and legacy of 1968, try as our adversaries may to draw us into such contests. We should not forget the great and terrible things about that time, but we should not get caught up in making it the defining moment for the Left. As Cohn-Bendit aptly pointed out, France spent 200 years fighting its Revolution; we should not spend forty years fighting the same battles, especially not when so much remains to be done. In that sense, we are all obligated to forget ’68.

What I took away from this speech was the idea that there is an inherent fallacy in my incessant use of the Sixties as the measuring stick by which to judge the activism in which I participate today. When Cohn-Bendit illuminated the challenges specific to our generation and the ways in which the youth was generally more carefree forty years ago, I came to understand – more than ever before – that this is simply a different time. What’s done is done, and there is no point in romanticizing a set of events that we can never replicate to the extent that it overshadows all of our actions. We must not continue to sell ourselves short by being held captive to the memories of prior generations. We can learn a great deal from the past, but we can also stunt the growth of our future. We deny our own potential when we make these false historical analogies. I am more determined than ever to overcome this, because there is work to be done.

I hope that this recap and limited (I would say restrained) set of reflections has sparked some thought in you. Please respond, as I would like to have some dialogue going on regarding anything mentioned in this post.

The time is on Thursday, from 12:10 to 12:30, and the location is at the Peace Circle by the Library.

Everyone should try to be there, or at the very least spread the word. We need to follow through on our conscious commitment to ending this war, and building a movement of people who will see to it that we do not senselessly enter similar conflicts in the future. (Also, bring signs if you’ve got ‘em).

I love this picture showing a long line of people. I find it greatly encouraging.

(click on the picture for a full-size version)

This is not the first time that this has been an issue for me personally. Last semester, Rivka and I passed an anti-guns petition around in our history lecture. Some [insert word here] who obviously disagreed with the petition decided that he felt offended enough that he actually crumpled up the sheet of paper and tore it. I should mention that the petition had names on it – the names of people who I and several others worked hard to reach, and whose names were lost probably forever because of one person’s knee-jerk hostility.

I don’t pretend that I agree with the message of all flyers. I want to deface the Republicans’ posters as much as anyone else, but I don’t. What I fail to grasp is the concept that anyone who simply disagrees with a flyer, or a petition, or an event, would actually expend the effort and saboe it. What does this accomplish? The only utility it serves, as far as I can see, is a greater sense of control and empowerment, in the negative sense (over other people). I aim to demonstrate that such narrow-mindedness actually has the opposite effect.

A fundamental principle that allows freedom of expression to thrive is the exercise of self-restraint. This is basic reasoning: If I act on my urge to interfere with someone else’s message, then I give license to that person to silence me (unless, of course, I believe that I am somehow above that person and can do what I want while they cannot). By ripping up my flyers, this person opened the door to his own muzzling. The logical extension of this situation is that the mutual attacks on expression will metastasize into a broader trampling on open expression within the community at large. Thus, the community should take notice; what seems small truly has great consequences.

I fear where these small incidents can lead. I urge you all to be vigilant and to stand up to what is effectively barbarism, and defend everyone’s right to free speech.

For information on the event: http://www.brandeis.edu/departments/cges/ 

Who is this guy? 

Click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_the_Red

But the problem is deeper than the fundamental injustice of the treatment of these women. The worst part is that, unlike members of the military, abusive KBR employees can get off scot-free for their crimes. To begin with, they are immune to prosecution (because they are not technically government workers). According to the Times, “In cases involving sexual assault, soldiers and other military personnel can be prosecuted under the military justice system, but that system does not apply to contractors.”  But even in civilian courts back in the States, justice still cannot be obtained by these women, as the extent of the law over private contractors in foreign war zones still has yet to be determined, this far into the war. (Incidentally,  all of the above is true of the Blackwater employees who indiscriminately killed innocent civilians last Fall).     

These contractors are Americans. Whether they commit crimes while being hired out by our government to do work overseas in Iraq, or whether they do the same horrible things to other Americans here on American soil, they should be prosecuted. There ought to be less obscurity, and fewer barriers, on the road to justice. Until that happens, Iraq is utterly lawless – not just in the usual sense (that is, the insurgencies and sectional conflicts that is going on) – but also in the sense that you can go there, as a civilian working for a private corporation, and kill or rape people, without being held accountable.     

It has been clear for some time that post-Saddam Iraq will be a turbulent place with little law or stability. Only now is it becoming clear that the place is also a sanctuary for criminals who happen to be working for private corporations with clout.

Do you remember Hurricane Katrina? Remember the images on TV and in the newspapers, of people stranded on floating rooftops? Remember hearing reports about the awful things that were happening in the Superdome? Remember how the government, rather than supplying the basic necessities to these people – food and water – gave them Bibles? Remember how untold thousands of people could not return to their homes? Did you know that they still have not returned to their homes? Remember the criminal negligence of a government that would not invest in the infrastructure of a city, but would spill billions on a war no one wanted? Remember that this is still going on? Remember how Katrina exposed all the cracks in our society – the deepest being the hidden truth that if you are poor and black, you don’t matter to those who are in power? Remember the corruption and mismanagement of the housing and services for the hurricane refugees? Remember your feelings of powerlessness as you watched an entire city disappear before your eyes? Remember wishing that there was something you could do to help? America is waiting to be America again. Who is going to save it? Certainly not this government. It’s up to the citizens, the willing, the idealists, the young. Whether or not you decide to come with DFA to Mississippi this April (the 22nd to the 27th), I strongly encourage you to find some time to go down there and help rebuild soon. We all share the responsibility for the restoration of the well-being of our nation. Let’s make it happen.