A group of professors in Saskatchewan are criticizing a scholarship that’s being offered to the children of fallen Canadian soldiers, calling it a “glorification of Canadian imperialism in Afghanistan.”
Sixteen University of Regina professors have drafted an open letter to school president Vianne Timmons, stating their concerns.
“It’s about associating heroism with the military intervention of Afghanistan,” said Jeffrey Webber, a political-science professor at the school…
The open letter, endorsed by Webber and his colleagues, asked for three things: the immediate withdrawal from Project Hero; public pressure on government to provide funding for universal access to post-secondary education; and a public forum on the war in Afghanistan and Canadian “imperialism” to be held before the end of semester exams…
Before the end of semester exams! WE SHALL NOT BE MOVED.
March 25th, 2010 at 9:28AM
There’s a tongue-in-cheek theory of organizational behavior which holds that every organization is run by people secretly out to destroy it. It gets surprisingly plausible if you think about it–Auburn University, SUNY-Binghamton, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Anyway, the Saskatchewan Sixteen seem a nice illustration of the principle. Is there any WORSE way to make your point than to go after the children of dead servicemen? An action that stupid can only be the result of deliberate sabotage . . .
March 25th, 2010 at 10:30AM
I wonder if the Sixteen would have supported a scholarship programme for the children of dead Taliban fighters? At any rate, I’m glad I don’t work at U. Saskatchewan: my family is Canadian military for three generations (only apostate: me), and a fist fight at a faculty meeting would probably be bad for collegiality.
March 25th, 2010 at 11:36AM
Um…I always wondered why the children of veterans should be favored over children of people who didn’t serve in the military.
I mean, if it’s a dead parent = hard times on family thing, then aren’t there other programs (at least here in the US…I suspect in Canada too, no?) to help in those situations?
If my dad dies in war, why is that more worthy of a scholarship than if my mom dies from cancer?
You’ll note that part of their agenda is “public pressure on government to provide funding for universal access to post-secondary education,” not just an insistence on getting their way. I am betting the rest is just overkill to allow for compromise, but I can;t be sure.
The veneration of the military industrial complex is the real problem, and Colin’s snide comment about the Taliban proves it (as well as his undisguised sense of entitlement for being from a military family).
March 25th, 2010 at 12:13PM
And, I ask Cassandra, why is the child of an aboriginal person more entitled to a scholarship (which they can get if they ask for it) than the child of a person who gave their life for their country? Oh yes, children of veterans are oh so favored over other groups of people in Canada. They get so much more than everyone else.
And if you think that the Canadian soldiers are NOT fighting for their country and the Canadian people (but maybe fighting and dying in “Bush’s War”….), please remember how many Canadians died on 9-11, and how the march of militant and extremist Islam threatens the freedoms of Canadians as well as all who hold freedom dear.
I’m with Colin. I would be willing to bet the S-sixteen would most definitely support aid to the children of the Taliban over aid to Canadian military families. It is so fashionable to hold such opinions. It demonstrates to everyone how morally superior you are.
Thank you to Colin’s family, for your collective service to Canada and the West.
And yes, Cassandra, Colin strikes me as SO entitled. Yes, if there is a class of people in Canada who display extreme entitlement, it’s those venerators of the military industrial complex. Please.
March 25th, 2010 at 6:09PM
Thanks, Tom. I don’t even know how to argue with Cassandra. How to do so with someone who can’t tell the difference between the private tragedy of a death from cancer and the tragedy, both private AND public, of a death in the service of one’s country? I assume it’s not a mental defect – smart people believe such things – so it must be blind hatred. So odd. Still, I did enjoy the delightfully retro reference to the military industrial complex. It must be the first it has been applied to the Canadian Forces, that famously over-funded organisation. As for entitlement, I never asked for nor received nor would have wished for a bean for what members of my family did; they did it, not me. My point was the anger I felt that 16 academics paid by the people of Saskatchewan would choose to spend their time trying to block, on obviously political grounds and using deeply offensive language (e.g. the bit about heroism), a scholarship programme of this kind. (The programme itself might or might not be a good idea.) Nothing should happen to them, of course – academic freedom only means something when it extends to people I hold in total intellectual and moral contempt. Perhaps Dave Stone is right: I can’t think of any other explanation for such dumb behaviour – unless of course they’re just dumb.
March 25th, 2010 at 7:25PM
To answer Cassandra’s question . . . American and Canadian society doesn’t ask much of most of us but simply to live our lives and pay taxes. But living normal lives of reasonable security in free democracies from time to time requires that some members of those societies put their lives on the line to defend them. I do not begrudge those who volunteer the comfort of knowing that their families will be taken care of.
March 25th, 2010 at 10:45PM
Let me try to triangulate here. Obviously, the Saskatchewan professors appear–and are–petty in their attempts to shut down a program that helps the children of those who gave their lives in military service In addition, the notion of Canadian imperialism seems a bit, well, fanciful. Where is this Canadian Empire of which the professors speak? Are the captive nations forced to eat poutine and listen to Bryan Adams albums?
On the other hand, I think the reactions to Cassandra here have been a bit harsh. I can’t speak for Canada, but here in the states, the public veneration of the military and its personnel can be a bit…I don’t know…off-putting. That’s not the fault of the troops; the ones I know seem perplexed by the notion that they are somehow better, or more worthy, than the average American. They joined for any number of reasons, and they understand that theirs was a voluntary decision. They want us to respect their choice and their sacrifice (time away from family, etc.), and they don’t want to be judged based on our opinion about the wisdom of the wars they are sent to fight.
The real problem is the nakedly political attempt by some on the political right to use the troops as a political bludgeon. Oppose the war? You must hate the troops. Want to cut the military budget, or even just have an honest conversation of about Pentagon waste? You want to undermine the troops. Don’t feel like wearing an American flag lapel pin? You refuse to honor our soldiers’ sacrifice.
The worst of all this is the notion, often repeated, that we owe our rights and freedoms exclusively to the military. No, in fact we don’t. Sure, soldiers (often, but not always) do things that defend our freedom, but so do lawyers, factory workers, even (God forbid) politicians and bureaucrats. Even some college professors. The government and ACLU attorneys who risked public contempt by defending the Constitution and representing Guantanamo detainees also showed great courage, albeit of a different sort. What did they get for it? Liz Cheney and her ilk publicly called them out as traitors.
I do fear a national narrative that requires us to speak only in reverent terms about those who represent force and authority in our society (soldiers, law enforcement officers, etc.). It’s not healthy for a democratic polity. And while I share the general sentiment here regarding the professors in Saskatchewan, I still worry that the overreaction to a few fools is simply evidence of this larger problem.
March 28th, 2010 at 8:07PM
I hear ya, Tafkau, but I have trouble dealing with “If my dad dies in war, why is that more worthy of a scholarship than if my mom dies from cancer?” What kind of ressentiment -filled mind thinks that’s a reason to deny scholarships to the children of dead soldiers? It’s an argument to create scholarships for the children of cancer victims. I guess I get that “Project Hero” is a creepy name if you think it’s an ill-advised war; but denying scholarships to kids is a weird response to that problem.