The
Greeks had a word for it. In fact, they had two words: Ολυμπιακοί
αγώνες,
Olympiakoi
Agones,
the
Olympic Games.
According to Wikipedia, the “athletic competition was tied to
worship of the gods, and the revival of the ancient games was
intended to bring peace, harmony and a return to the origins of Greek
life.” So that the games could take place, a truce was declared
suspending ongoing battles. And the prize for winning an olympic
event was an olive branch. That's not to say that olympic ideals
were always met, but those were the goals.
When
the games were reinstituted at the end of the nineteenth century,
they were restricted to amateurs, the “lovers” of sports, and they
were designed to bring peace between nations. Indeed, one of the
olympic goals is to “[c]reate a window of opportunity for dialogue
and reconciliation, separate from any religious, economic or
political influence.”
Unfortunately,
the olympic ideals have been sacrificed over the years to dogma,
dollars, and the quest for publicity. Officials have been involved
in corruption, competitors have used drugs to improve their
performance, professionals have been accepted into the events, and,
worst of all, as time goes by the “games” (they aren't really
games any more) have been more a matter of politics than sport.
Hitler politicized the games in 1936, and the Palestinians ascended
to the world stage in Munich in 1972 by attacking and killing Israeli athletes. High ideals were betrayed – both by the
people who were promoting them, and those with a political message.
Academia
has seen the same kind of dishonesty. Universities have been
functioning for centuries. For most of that time they have been
viewed as places of learning, where our youth would be exposed to a
wide variety of ideas and to explore the merits of scholarship other
than that which they had met earlier. They would have the
opportunity to consider and debate views that might be inimical to
them, but which they never completely understood before. They
expected others to be tolerant of their views as they would reflect
on the ideas expressed by those others. That was the point of
education: to determine if your preconceived notions stood up to
challenges, and to offer counter-arguments to the contentions of
others. It was a safe place to express yourself – whether in a
formal setting or a bull session.
In
recent years, however, those ideals have themselves been challenged
and often betrayed. “Relevance” and anti-war sentiment were the
themes of students toward the end of the twentieth century, and they
were accompanied by the demand for free speech. They insisted that
they be heard. It was a time when political sentiment was moving to
the left, and they were a part of it. They were liberals and
concerned for everyone. So much so that they avoided any reference
to others that might be considered derogatory. Language was changing
and euphemistic terms replaced the blunt descriptions we had of
others (eg “disabled,” “short,” “retarded,” “blind,”
“fat,” and the like). You had to be careful when you spoke. But
you could speak.
However
you can't always do that anymore. Times have changed. Free speech
and the exchange of ideas aren't always tolerable on a college
campus. That's an overstatement. Free speech is available to
protesters and protected classes, but not to those who disagree with
them. The “safe space” that once existed in order to allow those
who disagreed to air their views without disparagement – and gave
others the chance to hear them and, possibly, to learn from them –
has been supplanted by a place where only your truths may be
spoken and no one may disagree with you. You'll be comfortable and
not face the “risk” of exposure to unacceptable views. You may
not learn anything, but for your (parents') tuition money you can
rebel and protest in peace. Those who disagree will be shouted down
(much to the delight of protest organizers and the press) or, if
they're faculty members or members of the administration, denounced,
and forced to recant or resign. That's not the conventional way to
learn about the USSR or Orwell, but it's as close as many college
attendees (I hesitate to use the word “students”) will ever get.
It's
also close to the procedure of ISIS. They're a bunch of people with
fixed, if somewhat frightening views (and a huge income from stolen
oil). And they don't tolerate disagreement. So while rioting
college students may sometimes force university officials to
apologize for disagreeing with them, at the risk of having to face
sanctions – they must plead for their (academic) lives – from
their faculty organization or the administration, ISIS requires more.
There must be an admission of evil deeds and a demand that the
subject's government change its policies to suit their needs. It is
part of a ritual which they videotape in order to get publicity.
Then they behead the one who has done the pleading (that's the French
Revolution's approach to the problem), unless he converts to Islam
and accepts their views. Even then, his future is not certain.
There is no truce and the only chance to achieve peace and harmony is
on their terms – by acquiescing to their view of the “worship
of the gods.” It was good enough for the Greeks, though they were
unbelievers and would also have lost their heads.
Dogma,
dollars, and the quest for publicity.
Perhaps
there are times when the end justifies the means. Perhaps there are
times when the end is justified. But that's not always the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.