Some thoughts regarding our southern border. . .

The situation at our southern border is indicative of our political lives today. Not only is it illustrative of this administration's ignorance, incompetence and corruption. . . and not necessarily in that order. It is illustrative of what could be the biggest change in our foreign policy and simply our politics since the end of World War II.

A quick search on Google pulls up a Snopes fact check asserting that "the Department of Health and Human Services said Tuesday (May 29th, 2018) that it had 10,773 migrant children in its custody, up from 8,886 on April 29". Despite the President's and other's assertions that this policy is based on a 2008 law enacted by a Democratic Congress, it is his policy. It might be law, but the policy prior to this President was "Catch and Release". That is what started this whole controversy. It was this President, or actually his Attorney General announcing a policy of "zero tolerance".

Specifically, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said:

"I have put in place a “zero tolerance” policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border.  If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you.  It’s that simple. If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law." Snopes, Are More Than 10,000 Children in U.S. Detention Centers?

So a law passed in 2008 and passed by a Democratic congress, and signed by President Bush is being reinterpreted. It is policy. Again, Jeff sessions asserted "Zero Tolerance" is a policy. With that policy change, that law no longer applies only to those charged with felonies, but now to any and all crossing the border "illegally". With this announcement, we have gone from a policy of "Catch and Release" to one of "Zero Tolerance". And both of these policies include those applying for asylum.

Another search of the web brought me to Elle magazine, and an article or essay they published,"I Spoke With the Female Asylum Seekers Being Held in Prison. What They Told Me Is Haunting", For me, Elle is typically more involved with fashion and beauty. Yet here they offered an essay written by US Representative Pramila Jayapal from the state of Washington's 7th District. Jayapal went to one of the detainment camps, which is in fact located in her state of Washington, and is actually a prison. In the essay she recounts her conversations with some of the 170 women she met with there, and who had been arrested at the border, and who had been separated from their children.

It is a powerful piece. What most grabs me is that the article illustrates this administration's disregard for asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are now being treated as criminals. They are treated as are the "coyotes" and those who actually repeatedly cross the border illegally or have a history of criminal behavior. Asylum seekers do not engage in such. Rather, asylum seekers typically arrive at an entry point into the United States and ask for asylum. They look for and present themselves to authorities, the US Border Patrol.

Traditionally, this would lead to a legal review of their claim and if their claim was found true or with merit, they would be granted entrance into the US - they would be allowed to stay in the US. And yes, that did not happen instantly, they would be allowed to stay in the US till a decision was made, and this did take some time. And it should be noted that in most cases, they would appear in court. Most were not disappearing. That procedure, however, has been replaced by one of "Zero Tolerance".  Again, asylum seekers today are being arrested and separated from their children.

And it is this group, the asylum seekers, that intrigues me. Asylum seekers are now seen as criminal. To ask for asylum at the United States southern border does not allow you access to a hearing, but rather gets you into a detention center / prison, and separated from your children.

Now this action of the US government is tragic. The President himself acknowledges that. He has said he does not like it. Now of course he claims he has no choice, that it is the law of the land, but as pointed out, it is in fact his policy, his interpretation of the law. And the cost, the emotional and psychological damage to the children is there. The American Academy of Pediatricians has asserted such in a formal statement.

I do not want to take away from these issues, the pain inflicted, the policies, and the misstatements and even outright lies of this administration. That said, I am interested in the history of asylum seekers and refugees. I feel there is a larger point to be made here. In short that the actions alluded to here are violations of these immigrants' human rights. Specifically, the detainment of those charged, the separation of the children from their parents, and lastly the detainment of the children. Sadly, each of these will take years to sort out, but the assertion that each of these actions is a violation of their human rights can be made. In short, nothing like this policy has ever been conducted in the United States before. The closest we come are the detainment camps set up for the Japanese during World War II, which today are acknowledged to have been human rights violations.

Now the interesting thing is that there were no "human rights" in 1942 or 1944. The concept of such rights, "Human Rights", was introduced in late 1948 when the fledgling United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then the United Nations and its members have reinforced this concept or Declaration in 1951, when it ratified the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. This later document basically defines a set of rights to individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum. In 1966, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was adopted by the United Nations. Together, these are seen as an "International Bill of Human Rights".

Now what do I mean that there was no concept of "Human Rights" prior to the United Nations and the above? Obviously, the Bill of Rights can be found on the opening pages of the US Constitution, which was written in 1789. The concept of political rights has been discussed at least since the enlightenment of the seventeenth century. Further, you have the Magna Carta and the evolution of the English and American political systems. The difference is that all of these are the inner workings of a nation-state. The rights of an individual are always in relation to a nation-state. Never before had it been pondered whether these rights were portable, or transferable. Perhaps political philosophers such as Locke pondered such, but certainly never in practice. Never has a state pondered or claimed that its citizens are entitled to such rights beyond its borders. Such is the work of statecraft, diplomacy, and treaties.

The United Nations basically made the assertion with such treaties that individuals had human rights not only within the boundaries of a particular state, courtesy of that nation-state or country's government, but now across borders. Regardless of which border you were crossing, regardless of which country you were departing and which country you were entering, you now had certain inalienable rights.

And there is a reason for all of that happening in the period that it did. Again, this began in 1948, three years after the end of World War II, which was preceded by the first World War twenty years earlier. These were the most horrific and brutal wars ever witnessed. Both truly consumed the world like no other war previously. In no war prior were civilian populations effected as they had been in these two. Especially in the second, where we had massive aerial bombardments, firebombings, and the use of two nuclear devices. Plus the wholesale slaughter of millions, who died in the Nazi concentration camps and beyond. Never had civilians suffered the brunt of war as we had seen in these, especially the second. And with this suffering came massive numbers of refugees both during and after the war. People simply trying to survive. It was in response to these events that we have an International Bill of Human Rights.

In its zeal to protect civilian populations, to protect individuals, the United Nations, it could be argued, diminished the role of the nation-state, and its borders. The individual now has certain rights and privileges, regardless of where he or she is, and what relation, what standing, he or she has in relation to the nation-state or territory he or she is standing in. Further, the state is diminished in that it is now a member of the United Nations, which will impose its edicts, its dictates, upon the state. The state must now be in abidance with the treaties signed at the United Nations.

The point is that this is the core of globalism. Globalism is the disregard of the nation-state and its borders. The United Nations is the paradigm of globalism, (that and international business entities - but hold that thought). Historically, American conservatives have never held the United Nations in high regard, but it was typically due to the UN being seen as bureaucratic. It is a bunch of bureaucrats that consume our dues and fees, take up a big chunk of prime New York real estate, and provide us with little. At times the UN was and is annoying in that it challenges or criticizes US policy. Further, the UN has routinely condemned the actions of Israel, and the US being the ally that it is to that nation, has responded in kind.

Today, however, we challenge not the United Nations, but the treaties and documents, which are at its heart, the International Bill of Human Rights. Whether intentionally or not, the US is in these actions not only speaking to those who would cross its southern border "illegally"; the US is challenging the proposition that anyone has the right to cross that border claiming asylum, claiming to be a refugee, and appealing to such things as the International Bill of Human Rights. In the actions we are witnessing today,  the United States, on its southern border, is making history. With each detainment of those claiming asylum, which each detainment of a child, the United States is asserting that such people have no rights in the United States. The United States today is stating in its actions that it does not recognize an International Bill of Human Rights.

World War II and the long shadow which followed it is being forgotten. That is what we are witnessing. I am suggesting that the impetus for tolerance, and all that it entails, is fading into the sunset. The skirmishes that we experience today, what we routinely witness on our southern border, do not compare to two World Wars. By themselves, today's events, do not stir up sufficient public opinion. And that which did, those two wars, do in fact have have expiration dates. They are being forgotten.

One more stab at the uniqueness of universities. . .

For the past month I have been stuck on the value of universities. It began with a debate I participated in involving the question of controversial speakers at Universities. I was arguing that such speakers brought nothing of value to universities. The debate has happened. It is over, but the topic continues to haunt me. In short, I just feel that the motion debated is perpetuated by the fact that people do not appreciate the value of a college or university.

One of the items I was looking at when I prepared for the debate was the issue that in my few encounters with this debating group, The Motion, narrative or story telling was not used. I realized, participating as a debater this time that the time constraints just do not allow for such. I had two timed segments, an opening statement, which was five minutes, a closing statement, which was 3 minutes, and a few quick responses during the question and answer period. None of them allowed for a good story, unfortunately.

So I figure I will offer that story here. I do believe it offers another argument for the value of colleges and universities.

So the argument, or story that did not make the cut involves a  Professor I encountered while I was at Rutgers-New Brunswick, way back in the late 80's. He might still be there. He was last time I looked a few years back. He was teaching a Philosophy of Language class I had in my junior year. It was in Scott Hall, but in the back, I believe? Early on in the semester he started exploring what was required for a language to work, to function. He offered up to the class, God's little brother, who was building a language. What would he need for that language to work? That was basically the topic of the lecture or a series of lectures, or at least my recollection of it.

So he was going on about that and it was intriguing. I recall I stole one of his arguments and used it in another class, only to realize that other students from that same philosophy of language class were in that class also. Embarrassing.

Regardless, what I would have liked to have brought to the debate was one occasion where he, this Professor, was in the midst of his lecture trying to sort out what was going on between him, his imaginary interlocutors, and the class, and in that class (or often enough), his encounter with the chalk and chalk board. He routinely used the board to accentuate a point. He would discuss or lecture and then put the conclusion on the board. It was a method of highlighting or emphasis.

And yet once he would put that assertion up, he would quickly come back and challenge it. It would go something likes this. "So it looks like language requires abc, and a, b, c, all require x." He would then put X on the board. As soon as he put X on the board, he would turn around and say,"But if we believe that abc requires X, then we must also believe Y, but . . . we started by saying that we don't believe Y. So how does that work? Why do we believe X, but yet we cannot grant Y?"

In dealing with such quandaries, and posting them on the board, he would end up covered in chalk dust. Honestly he would just smear it on his forehead, cheeks, and nose, Several folks in the class pointed this out to me afterwards. I had not seen it till after they had pointed it out. He had brought me along in his journey, and neither he nor I had noticed his being covered in dust at the end of the lecture.

That being covered in dust and not knowing or caring, that being absorbed in the problem there before him, was and is a wonderful thing. And for me to not notice that detail till after the fact and just go with him on that exploration was wonderful. That ability to dive into something with that intensity, where one is unaware of the things around him or her is truly of value. That is part of an education and a university.

Sadly, I was not able to sneak this into the debate, so I offer it here.

And thank you Professor Ernest Lepore.

My notes and other stuff regarding Controversial Speakers at Universities

Last Wednesday, May 1st, I did my first debate with The Motion, a group advocating debating as an after-work social thing. Part fun, part toast-masters, part education, and with free beer. . . They happen once a month, with four prepared debaters, and an audience of like 30 people.

Every month it is a different topic. This month it was whether controversial speakers should be allowed on public Universities. I was taking the position that they should not be allowed. Below are the notes I came with and some afterthoughts. 

I do look forward to going back, both as an audience member and debater. 

1^st Round (5 Minutes)

Controversial speakers are NOT good for public universities.

That is what I am defending.

Now despite my wife, and others' disapproval here, this is really not all that controversial.

So let's give it a shot. . .

I start by offering this question: What does a university do? 

(Aside from providing us with March Madness and New Years Bowl games, what do they do?)

What is the function of a university? Public or private. . .

Universities do two things. They perform two functions.

They research. . . they search for truth, and they educate.

These two things were and are the core of a university, past and present.

Regardless of what domain you point to, whether it be literature, sociology, or physics, there are certain things going on at a university which allow for it to research and educate. And it is these things, found at a University, and that provide for research and education. These same things do not allow for controversial speakers at a university, public or private.

Next question. What are these things? What makes a university successful in discovering and researching stuff, whether it be history or chemistry? Likewise, what makes it successful in educating? Again, whether it be in history or chemistry, whatever. 

I offer you several items here:

1.     a faculty, 

2.     a canon (or a set of highly regarded and defining texts), which the faculty respects, embraces, and applies. 

3.     a set of research methodologies, typically found in those texts, and applied by the faculty 

4.     a set of publications dedicated to research in a specific area or domain introduced in the canon and explored by the faculty

5.     With those publications, a process for publishing and getting published, a set of topics or questions each domain largely focuses on, tries to answer, and build upon

6.     Ultimately peer review of both in these publications and various conferences. 

These items are what allow for the fruit of research. They are what allow for truths to be discovered, and education. And again, they do not allow for controversial speakers.

Our controversial speakers typically do not contribute to the above. They are not part of that ecosystem. Rather they are part of our commercial media. They  sell books. they do TV and radio. They have podcasts. They participate in a system not focused on truth and learning but rather primarily advertising and sales. There is a difference between Rutgers University and CNN or Fox News.

And that is my first argument against controversial speakers.

2^nd and Final Round (3 minutes)

Let me first review what I laid out earlier:

Universities offer two things: Research and Education

And those two things are achieved by the list I provided:

·        A faculty

·        A canon

·        A set of methodologies

·        A set of publications

·        And peer review

And the controversial speakers again thrive primarily in a commercial media. They thrive in the selling of books, and ads.

Now in the question and answer period, the one thing I heard or expected to hear was reference to the freedom of speech and how important it was to education.

I offer two responses:

Freedom of speech is a political concept. It is found in our Bill of Rights in the Constitution. It prohibits the state from interfering with the free expression of its citizenry. Again, it is a political concept.

This is not to be confused with academic freedom, Researchers and students can and do pursue various research and educational agendas. They challenge core ideas and beliefs found in the canons of their studies. That is when this stuff becomes fun!

The most interesting idea is the idea that challenges but yet sustains the critique of the canon, the faculty, the methodologies, and the peer review and is ultimately published.

It is with the above list and academic freedom that we decide which research to embrace and what defines an education. It is the play of these things that bring us to new ideas, new research and new truths. So, the free play of ideas is within the domain that I describe.

This is what a University provides. . . research and education.

Afterthoughts:

The whole discussion that night circled around whether the controversial speakers had the right to speak. The focus was on the political.

Not only that but the discussion was focused on the controversial speakers of today. We did not deal with communist or far-left speakers or anything else. Just the far-right neo-fascists that are out there today - now. And sadly, my partner I feel exaggerated their positions. This was really neither the time nor the place to focus on them. They are only a type of controversial speaker that visit universities.

That said, I was the only one that pointed out that a University is a unique cultural institution that had built into it ways to deal with such speakers.

Lastly and this was perhaps my favorite offering of the evening and was in the midst of the question and answer period. It went something like the following:

“You may sympathize with my partner and his position. That said, you may not be willing to close down speech rights to these speakers. If that is the case-that you are not wanting to just say they don’t have a right to speech. Well then you need to look at my position. We do not need to ban their right to speech here. In this debate the topic is what is happening at universities. Not the general culture, not what is happening in out there, not what is happening here, but at our universities. Allow the Universities to use the tools and methods they have sharpened for decades. . .centuries to deal with such.”

The last item is regarding how we did. Motion Debates does take a tally before and after the debate to see how each side did. We went from 4 people holding our position before to 6 people after. A 50% increase.  

Sadly, the other side had like 22 people supporting their position at the start and that went to 26 at the end. There was a handful or two of those who were uncertain. 

I left thinking no doubt we had been fighting an uphill battle. And my position, where I argued that controversial speakers can be dealt with by the University, few got. More importantly, at least for me in hindsight, was the role of the university and how I see that effecting the equation, again few got. Not to my satisfaction.