Amitai Etzioni Notes

On the campus: forty years later

A 1968 issue of the New York Times magazine carries a picture of yours truly waving a finger at a mass of students at Columbia University. The picture accompanies an article I wrote on my experience, called “confessions of a professor caught in a revolution.” At the time, left-leaning students had occupied several buildings on campus after the university’s president ignored their repeated requests to discuss their grievances. Right-wing students sought to rush the buildings and drive out the occupying students. I belonged to a group of faculty that formed a cordon between the two groups, to prevent a confrontation sure to turn violent.  We succeeded.

Columbia, along with most other American colleges and universities, has come a long way from 1968. True, some still have stuck up presidents, and some still follow policies that give grief to anyone with a social consciousness. However, the fortieth anniversary of the student uprising at Columbia is a good time to note how far things have come. Doing so gives hope to those of us who continue to campaign for change on the societal level as well as in the university system.

•In 1968, all professors in my department were white males. At meetings of the admissions committee for graduate students, faculty often scrutinized photos of the candidates (required as part of the application in those days) and preference was sometimes given to those applicants found to be good looking  by the faculty (many of whom had student mistresses). These days faculties are diverse; perhaps not as much as they ought to be, but a long way from what they used to be. Also, colleges have adopted strict policies on intimate relations between professors and students, although these are not always enforced.

•Grayson L. Kirk, president of Columbia University in 1968, paid little mind not only to the preferences and views of students but also those of the faculty. He did not survive the 1968 uprising, and was unceremoniously retired. The new president, Andrew W. Cordier was much more accessible. Today you do still find presidents who pursue their own lights, but they tend to end up like Harvard’s former President Larry Summers—looking for another job.

•In 1968, Columbia University was expanding, paying little mind to the needs of its mostly lower income, mostly African American neighbors at the edge of Harlem. Today, many worry it is doing the same with its controversial plans for a new campus in Manhattanville. Although, to be sure, it is proceeding much more cautiously and somewhat more openly than in 1968.  Since then, the relationships between Town and Gown have continued to be complex and tense, in. colleges from Yale to UCLA. Still universities tend to pay more attention to the needs of their neighbors, especially if these are poor or members of minorities, than they did forty years ago.

•Columbia University prided itself in 1968 on its ‘core curriculum’—a series of courses (required for all undergraduates) on the history, philosophy, and culture of Western Civilization, with a strong emphasis on the classics.  Since then, partially in response to criticism that a curriculum dominated exclusively by ‘dead white men’ hardly amounted to adequate preparation for ‘contemporary civilization,’ the required curriculum has expanded to include numerous courses in non-western cultures, as well as more female and non-white author who write in the Western tradition. In effect, currently there are some who believe that Columbia and other universities have gone too far in trying to be multicultural, and have lost their role as institutions dedicated to transmitting the core of Western culture.

•The least amount of change since 1968 has occurred in the academic pecking order. Columbia and other high prestige universities still tend to scoff at “applied” disciplines such as criminology, education and social work, even business and engineering and tend to extol abstract subjects such as pure math, economic theory, and scientific models. The fact that applied and abstract disciplines have a lot to give each other—that applied ones serve as important corrective to blue yonder theories, and abstract theories can provide strong underpinning and drive new insights in applied ones—is not much better understood today than in 1968. Maybe it will take another forty years to bridge this gap. Given that colleges did make substantial albeit insufficient progress on the other fronts, hope springs eternal.

Obama: the second half

In the my wildest dreams, during eighteen years of championing communitarianism, I did not expect a presidential candidate to be as strongly identified with this political philosophy as Obama is. It is hence particularly important that he will not limit his message to “we are not from red states, not from blue states, but from the United States”—but will add: “Ask not what your country….”; that he will go beyond we-are-all-in this-together kumbaya—to we all will have to put our shoulders to the wheel to get this train back on the tracks; from feel-good politics, sprinkled liberally with the holy water of hope that has no cost-- to political leadership which seeks a mandate for change that will require sacrifices for the common good,.  In short, follow the communitarianism of responsibility above and beyond that of community-building, which is by far the less taxing part.
   
In The Audacity of Hope, written before Obama declared his bid for the presidency, the author showed, even more then President Kennedy, he understood that we should “ground our politics in the notion of a common good.”  Obama was well versed not only in the language of rights and entitlements but also that of obligations. In those far away days, in 2005, he wrote, “We value the imperatives of family and the cross-generational obligations that family implies…We value patriotism and the obligations of citizenship, a sense of duty and sacrifice on behalf of our nation.”
 
Better yet, Obama used to stress that “in the end a sense of mutual understanding isn’t enough.  After all, talk is cheap; like any value, empathy must be acted upon.”   He recounted with pride that when he was a community organizer “[he] would often challenge neighborhood leaders by asking them where they put their time, energy and money.”  In those days, he put it better than any other communitarian when he stated: “ If we aren’t willing to pay a price for our values, if we aren’t willing to make some sacrifices in order to realize them, then we should ask ourselves whether we truly believe in them at all.”   

On the campaign trail many of these profound insights have faded. We now hear painless declarations such as  “Our prosperity can and must be the tide that lifts every boat; that we rise or fall as one nation.” And such undemanding observations as  “…too often, we lose our sense of common destiny;  the] understanding that we are all tied together.”
 
True, occasionally we still hear echoes of the old Obama; but now the recognition that sacrifice we must appears as a sort of after thought. On the campaign trail Obama typically declares that now we “…require a new spirit of cooperation, innovation, and shared sacrifice.”

The nation is upon hard times. Its coffers are empty; creditors are at the gate; the military is exhausted and depleted;  the regard with which America is held overseas is at all time low, and major economic and security challenges pile up like that many storm clouds. The nation demands a prolonged period of restoration, one in which merely replenishing all that was squandered will entail raising taxes and keeping new expenditures under a tight leash. In plain English--sacrifices. If the next president will enter office without a mandate for such give rather than take, especially for imposing a hefty tax on oil, we are likely to sink deeper into the ditch in which we have been cast rather than to start to climb out.
   
Granted, being straight with the American people is to engage in risky politics. Walter Mondale got his head handed to him when he candidly addressed the need for raising taxes (although his main problem was not his candor but that he seems to look forward with glee to higher taxes rather than bemoan their inevitably). Jimmy Cater got into similar trouble when he tried to impose a tiny tax (50 cents) on gasoline. And John F Kennedy did not get to “Ask Not” until his inauguration. In contrast, Ronald Regan sailed into White House on wave of hope of a new morning in America, which required no more than being there at dawn.
        
Maybe the best one can hope for is not a Churchillian call for ‘blood, sweat, and tears,” but for Obama as the presidential candidate to quote the author of Audacity of Hope. For him to lay out the full communitarian message-- that community building does not mean merely embracing one another and laying to rest our divisions, but also serving the common good. That our rights are sacred but so are our responsibilities. 

Better, Obama can employ a communitarian device and ask the people what they believe. Do Americans see a need for sacrifices? How would they free us from our dependency on imported oil?  What are they willing to do to get the nation out of debt? How far do they hold that nation should go in protecting itself from terrorism?

A Personal Note

I am receiving a considerable amount of abusive comments here, in my email inbox, and in other places where I publish my thoughts (most recently in the British The Guardian and the French Le Monde).   Hence, I wanted to tell you that I am a fairly decent guy, at least I think so. I love dogs (I am not as crazy about cats); I dote on my small army of grandchildren (one is cuter and smarter than the other; nobody else’s grandchildren come close); I do not spit on the sidewalks nor do I blow smoke into anyone’s face. (I do sometimes jay walk; I just got a ticket after I crossed a street mid-block in Bethesda). And I do not curse, at least not when other people can hear me.

Above all, I am a champion of peace among nations and people, any time, any place. I was involved in close quarter fighting for two and half years before I turned twenty. The killing and maiming left me with a deep aversion to all forms of violence and guns. (Some of the most abusive mail I get is when I remind my fellow Americans that the Second Amendment does not authorize an individual right to gun ownership, and that guns in the house are much more dangerous for kids and spouses than for any criminal who might one day break in).

Soon after I graduated from UC Berkeley I wrote two books whose titles tell it all: The Hard Way to Peace and Winning without War. They dealt with ways in which the United States and the Soviet Union could work out their differences without coming to blows, ways to ensure that the Cold War would not turn hot and could best be terminated.

When I got my first job at Columbia University, I joined a group of faculty who, in 1968, formed a human chain to prevent students from a right wing group from forcing left wing students out of a campus building that they were occupying in protest against college policies: policies concerning Columbia's  institutional affiliation with the Institute for Defense Analyses (a weapons research think-tank affiliated with the U.S. Department of Defense during the Vietnam War) and concerning the university's plans for an allegedly segregatory gymnasium in Harlem.     

More recently I got a group of people from the left and right to endorse a statement that calls on all schools to teach children ways to resolve differences by using their words rather than their fists [here]. Adults, too.

For the last year, I have been trying to convince policy makers in Washington and elsewhere to stop presuming that all Muslims are terrorists, and to cease maintaining that the West is involved in a clash of its civilization with those of all others. I showed in great detail that Islam is no different from other religions and even secular bodies of belief, in that it can be read to promote war or spiritual growth, terrorism or peace. Moreover, I showed that most Muslims belong to the peace loving camp. Hence as long as we do not demand that they accept our form of government, we can find among them many partners in peace. (For more see Security First). You may disagree with me, but I do not believe that you will find these ideas violent or offensive.

I am especially proud, as an Israeli-American, to have issued a statement together with a leading Palestinian-American, Shibley Telhami, calling on both Israel and the Palestinians to put aside, for now, the blame game, and focus on the joint future. We pointed out that as long as each party holds that the other one started it all, each side will wait for the other to yield, instead of looking for a common ground which would require concessions from both parties.

My main problem is that I often can see both sides (or more) of many issues, and hence find it difficult to be fully on any one side. I do not believe that liberals are right all the time; I do not feel that neocons have horns and forked tails; I was a guest of the reformers in Iran and learned a lot from them, as I did from Shimon Peres in Israel. I am not sure that such moderation is a fault, though I do realize that being one sided makes for a better pitch, an easier advocacy. Anyhow nobody is perfect, and I cannot stop myself from trying to find the middle of the road. I am not even sure that I want to. Now how about giving the brick pats a rest, and let’s have a reasoned give and take?

The Israel I Was Fighting For

Sixty years ago, when I was fighting for Israel during its war of independence, I won a lot of respect. Now many of my liberal colleagues, including Jewish ones, raise their eyebrows. They hoped for an Israel that is citadel of individual rights, a land in which social justice prevails as laid out by the Prophets, and a peace-making nation—a sort of a Switzerland in the Middle East, only more enlightened.

Let's "bomb" Myanmar--with rice

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated earlier this week that he “couldn’t imagine the United States dropping aid by air” to the million displaced people of Myanmar “without permission from the Myanmar government.”  “It’s sovereign air space, and you'd need their permission to fly in that air space," U.S. Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen explained to reporters. Such airdrops of urgently needed supplies like food, water and medicine have been suggested by, among others, Ky Luu, director of the U.S. Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. However, so far at least, they’ve not been carried out. The reluctance to send in food and medicine, whether or not a given government grants permission, raises an important issue concerning humanitarian aid and even more generally, international relations in the 21st century.

Economic Suicide

The other day I was playing with my time machine and came across an essay by a highly respected historian, written in 2020, in which she summarized the economic developments in the United States in the final years of the preceding decade (that is, between 2006 and 2010). By allowing the price of oil to skyrocket and doing extremely little to curb its import—by paying through the nose for millions of barrels of foreign oil—the United States transferred huge amounts of its wealth to its adversaries. Among the top beneficiaries were Iran, Russia, Venezuela and an assortment of authoritarian countries from Saudi Arabia to Kazakhstan.

Supreme Court tilts election, big time

This week’s Supreme Court decision allowing election laws that greatly favor the GOP to stand received little attention, considering the considerable and partisan effect it will have on the upcoming election. Because the court dealt only with the law of one state (Indiana), one might assume that whatever damage is to be inflicted on the Democrats would be limited. Actually, 23 other states have already enacted similar laws, and, now that the law has been given the green light by the court, others may well follow.

McCain’s Gas

McCain is depicted as a man of integrity, as one who commands an inner core of strong values, a man of principles. But, he has veered to the right to gain the GOP nomination; he changed his mind on several key policy issues (e.g. on extending the Bush tax cuts). But all this is not nearly as revealing of the true nature of his political character as his call to lift the tax on gasoline (albeit, for now only for the summer). It is a very revealing move.

 

Unhooked—and paying for it?

Washington Post reporter Laura Sessions Stepp’s recent book Unhooked is a rich sociological vineyard. It revisits a theme flagged by Tom Wolfe in his 2004 novel I am Charlotte Simmons. Both are studies of new sexual norms that have emerged on college campuses in which millions of students have sexual relations with one another while avoiding social relationships. They do not “waste” time on dating, seeking to avoid both the “costs” of developing relationships and the pangs of loss when relationships sour and then break-up. Instead, students engage in sexual relations with partners who are, as the catch-phrase puts it, “friends with benefits”; only the focus is on the (sexual) benefits, not on friendship.  The energy conserved by avoiding relationships, we are told, is then invested by students in their careers.  Some feminists celebrate this development, arguing that all that has changed is that women now do what men long did: f— and hurry along.

Let Them Wear Headscarves II: A Response

My call for dropping the ban on wearing headscarves, for those women who wish to wear them -- even on campuses in Turkey, in governments buildings in Germany, and in schools in France (where crosses are allowed) -- generated a considerable set of comments [here]. The following is my response. Given the variety of the responses, it is not possible to react to each single comment; instead I will try to deal with issues raised by several commentators.