Mules With Brains

Writing on the Wall

Hello,

Following are my general observation regarding the current debate about the writings outside Miller. I must also point out that this is not the first time that the writing have happened. I am positive that while patrolling for security I saw those 3-4 weeks ago as well.

Regards,

Rahul Gupta.

The entire community including the administrative authorities understands the importance, necessity, and value of maintaining and fostering freedom of speech. However an essential difference between the attitude of those governing and those being governed over freedom of speech emanates from the difference in opinion on the question as to, through which method/or how should this freedom be exercised.

It seems to be the authorities’ argument that freedom of speech be expressed through the already established channels like the Digest of Civil Discourse, Seminars, social discussion within the students, etc. It must be said that rarely have the authorities tried to restrict freedom of speech through such political tools, unless the opinions of the writers have been perceived as illegal according to the administrations understanding of the federal/state constitutions.

Hence, when political tools other than the ones being allowed are used –the administration of course tries to restrict such tools. Their argument that more ‘civil tools’ be used even to propagate a ‘just’ cause seem pretty reasonable because such actions:

· Show students lack of respect for the existing laws. Shows a tendency to break civic rules and regulations.

· May have a negative effect (as perceived by them) on those who aspire to be a part of our community.

· May lead to further uncivil, political dissidence which might not be for a ‘just’ cause.

· May lead to more aggressive, un-co-operational, confrontational, and dissident political/social tools which again may not be totally justified.

· Then of course, there is that minor issue of Colby’s aesthetics.

Due to such reasons, it seems the authorities want to penalize those who have started the perceived ‘dissident culture,’ by asking for repatriations. It must be understood that the repatriations primary purpose is not to be punishments to the concerned students in particular, rather to make it clear to other students that such actions is intolerable and proper channels like the DoCD should be employed. The administrations problem is the political tool employed; not the cause, for which it was employed, or even student’s right to freedom of speech, or the fact that the chalk would have been washed away with the next rain.

The students on the other hand would contend that tools such as the DoCD have become totally ineffective due to reasons widely known. They would argue that the cause and their right to freedom of speech are bigger than the tool being employed. After all dissident actions are the best way to grab attention. They would argue that “For gods sake it was just chalk that would have washed away with the next rain! Don’t we have the right to express ourselves through other means when DoCD becomes largely ineffective?” There is obviously much truth in their contentions. The central point being that when the system becomes ineffective, shouldn’t it be discarded to achieve the desired goals? Isn’t that what the fathers of the American constitution did? While their methods would have been seen as working outside of the system, we all know that what they achieved was/is legendary. But then again, the administrators might hit back, “Well, who let the DoCD become ineffective?”

To me essentially the debate doesn’t seem to be about the Cause or right to freedom of speech, but rather about the political tool used. It’s an interesting question.

Oh I also have a Haiku..

Civil confrontation is wow…

Makes U think, analyze, debate,

Maybe a conclusion,

Wow!!!

Mules With Brains

Reform in Islam

Reform within a society, a culture, a nation, or even a religion cannot occur at the behest of the elite class. While it is true that the elites are the most influential within the governments and the media, but on the flip side they are perceived by the vast un-educated majority as the blasphemous face of their society, as the non-cultural, un-nationalistic, inconsiderate strata of the society which is too modernized to understand the sensitivities of the vast majority. While the elites enjoy the support of the so-called modern world, they have virtually no following amongst there own people.

This is not to say that the vast majority does not want reform. Of course it does, but in its own way --at it’s own pace. Through consensus rather than force, through respect rather than humiliation, through acceptance rather than rejection. Acceptance of the true meaning of Jihad rather than rejection of it as a whole. Respect for its cultural practices rather than being the centre of sarcasm. Consensus within there own leaders rather than the western media or the governments forcing them to act, at its own pace- with their own intiative.

Nobody likes to get into conflicts, but if you push someone into the corner- he is only going to get more aggressive. That is human nature, it has nothing to do with what religion you belong to.

Mules With Brains

WOW!
This is great--A real, loud Muslim person, pointing out the deep rut of Arabic culture, and pointing out the use of religion towards illegitimate ends---and making a big discussion within Islam!
Let's just hope she doesn't get murdered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/international/middleeast/11sultan.html

AND, it's a great testament to an extremely brave woman.

Definitely worth a check out.