The terrorist label and academic cowardice

I returned to college spring of 2002, six months after 9/11.

I considered the opportunity, at my age and with my background, a miracle. The honor and gratitude I felt fueled an almost maniacal effort to excel in every class. I had made it to, I thought, the bastion of free, critical, and investigative thought.

It wasn’t long before I found out differently, and one of the first indicators was how my professors and classmates used the words terrorist and terrorism as political labels and not as a critical determination of a person or group’s actions.

When I questioned this lack of discrimination in an introductory class on Islam the professor became nervous and refused to engage the discussion; I was told I needed to take other classes if I wanted to ask those questions.

But even more unsettling was the reaction by the other students in the class. Many of them became angry at the suggestion that our actions (the United States) also amounted to terrorism. They had little desire to have a critical discussion on what defined terrorism and even less willingness to allow a person’s or country’s actions—rather than ethnicity, religion, nationality—to determine how the word was applied. Instead they wanted to have their popular knowledge garnered from corporate news media, whether correct or not, reinforced and not challenged.

And ten years later, in a doctoral level research class, I found the same refusal by the professor and many of my classmates to question the official government line on topics related to 9/11 and who and what a terrorist was. In these cases those who had been taught to rely on critical thought were expected to accept government press releases as fact if they expected to be accepted in the academy.

To me the refusal to question our government’s actions, especially in areas that involve waging war and violence on other’s around the world, amounts to academic cowardice. And when this happens with the people who have the skills necessary to bring greater truth and clarity to these discussions, it can amount to complicity.

Glenn Greenwald’s article on the “terrorist label”:

Refusal to Call Charleston Shootings “Terrorism” Again Shows It’s a Meaningless Propaganda Term

Bridging the gap between the public and the academy.

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Freedom of speech, The academy, U. S. Empire

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

People Power, Civil Resistance, and Social Transformation: An Introduction to Nonviolent Conflict
The Boétie Legacy, and a World in Peril
Follow Robert A. Kezer, PhD on
%d bloggers like this: