Letters to Hermes


Aongus Burke Will Make the Trains Run On Time

I would like to congratulate Hermes hero Aongus Burke on his wonderfully developed sense of self-parody, which is undoubtedly what wins him so many supporters. Aongus very deliberately adopts the tone of what a less informed reader might call a "supreme fascist bubble-boy asshole," and then exaggerates it further, allowing us all to throw back our heads and laugh along with him. That Aongus! He says the darndest things! Lines such as, "In every community there exists a permissible range of discourse," are gems of a breed long lost to those who satirize the lead-licking left. They are a funny bunch, indeed, and Aongus knows how much we all need a good laugh. Nothing-aside from some wonderfully underappreciated porn on the Table of Contents-can better fill that void inside the Wesleyan student. Aongus isn't just some ego-trippin' loudmouth with nothing new to say and even less of an ability to do so with any remote sense of respect or diplomacy; no, his every word envelopes the love and the understanding necessary for us to grow together, to eschew the precarious fate of the spoiled student who mistakes an expensive bubble for a "distinct intellectual culture." And the title! "Free Speech My Ass." Can you beat it? Aongus Burke is clearly not out to be controversial for the sake of being remarkably uninteresting and unproductive. He is an essential part of this great community of humor at Wesleyan, and I encourage him to never ever let us lapse into serious debate on the important topics. It would only disturb the delicate balance that's costing my dad a whole hell of a lot of money.

-Tim Howard


An Open Letter to Aongus Burke and the Wesleyan Community


I am writing today in response to Aongus Burke's "Campus Diary" in the December 1997 issue of the Hermes. In that issue, Mr. Burke prescribes what he views as the acceptable range of political discourse for the Wesleyan Community. Notably, his charge to Wesleyan students calls for the exlusion of "right-wing discourse" from the campus (his exact words are, "The more that left-thinking people acquiesce to the intrusion of right-wing discourse on to this campus, the more we contribute to the disintegration of the distinct intellectual culture that currently exists at Wesleyan.")
I would like to contradict Mr. Burke's less-than-liberal critique of campus political sentiment with my own critique of his politics. While Mr. Burke would surely like Wesleyan students to believe that his rhetoric stands for liberalism and social activism, it is the opposite that is true. In fact, his characterization of "right-wing" sentiment on campus is truly conservative, elitist and xenophobic.
It is true that many consider Wesleyan to be a safe haven for discourses that have been marginalized in mainstream American culture. However, Mr. Burke ignores the reason that this is so, namely, that Wesleyan is attractive to people of all political flavors because it embraces the virtues of liberal education. Perhaps he has confused the idea of liberal education, that process of multi-disciplinary critical inquiry, with the idea of "liberal" American politics, often concerned with opposition to the Republican Party. In any case, to irrationally attack differing ideology is not to engage in the spirit of critical analysis, but to defend the status quo per se.
My second point, that Mr. Burke's argument is elitist, rests on the fact that he defends "the distinct intellectual culture that currently exists at Wesleyan" as the only culture worth preserving. I add here that once again, Mr. Burke has confused the idea of an intellectual culture with a political culture. In this light, it would seem that Mr. Burke is interested in only one kind of political discourse, invalidating all others (encompassing those of a more conservative nature as well as those of a more liberal, progressive and even radical nature than his own).
Finally, I wish to point out that Mr. Burke is guilty of using the same logic to marginalize conservative political sentiment here at Wesleyan as has been used by others to marginalize liberal political sentiment in mainstream American culture. He reinforces the idea that only certain kinds of discourses are acceptable in certain places. While I agree that all thought and expression deserves to be recognized, I do not agree that we should go about dictating the place, time or medium for such expression. To do so is simply censorship, no less. It is akin to the music industry deciding who gets to listen to (and record) what music; it is akin to the television and movie industries deciding what content is appropriate for what viewer; and it is akin to "neighborhood associations" deciding what people of which race may live in their neighborhoods.
I could go on, but my point is obvious: to exclude an outside group based on the fear that they may upset the status quo is unfair. When such discrimination is practiced by formerly marginalized groups it is paradoxical to the point of being ludicrous. When one group intimidates another into foregoing self-expression it is censorship. And when we stand for this kind of exlusionary, discriminatory and anti-democratic rhetoric at Wesleyan, we will have lost the power of every step and every stride we have made against the sea of intolerance we confront every day.

Sincerely,

Zachary K. Becker '99



Aongus Responds


You know, I was hoping the last Hermes issue would stir up some controversy and get people talking. The panel discussion on fluid sexuality was organized with that in mind. If that didn't work, I figured, hey, why not throw in a picture of two naked guys about to buttfuck with my article on that oh-so-sensitive topic about gay male promiscuity and AIDS. But, as it turns out, it's a short little piece on campus politics I wrote at the last minute that has generated all the controversy. Several close friends have labeled me a "fascist" and now I'm being called, ugh, a liberal.
Well, at least it's with the implication that I'm a bad liberal. I assure you, Zack, my argument in "Free Speech My Ass" was not a liberal one. It was in fact based on a rejection of the liberal faith in free speech. Free speech is a myth. It does not exist anywhere, and it cannot. No society can persist unless just about all of its members share certain basic beliefs. Invariably, these beliefs are held with such deep conviction by so many that attempts to call them into question are treated as heresy and persecuted accordingly. If you don't believe me, I suggest you write an article in a campus publication that challenges the sanctity our society places on free speech.
OK, maybe I shouldn't play the victim card like that. I'll give you a better example. There is a group known as the North American Man Boy Love Association. In America today, people from both major parties condemn what they call child molestation routinely. It's an easy way to score political points. NAMBLA can only make its case heard in very select forums. Only the most radical fringes of the gay political scene will let them be heard. Personally, I reject NAMBLA's arguments because I just don't believe that anyone under, say, 14 years of age can really give informed consent when it comes to sexual matters. But I certainly do think that most of America ought to rethink the hysterical manner in which we treat any and all cases of intergenerational sexual relations. That will not happen in mainstream America for a long time. Is that free speech?
It seems like you'd like to believe that we can transcend such taboos on discussing certain topics at Wesleyan, this being an "intellectual," not a "political" culture. Ask any member of the Wesleyan faculty whether they think their intellectual culture isn't intensely politicized. C'mon, I dare you.
Incidentally, nowhere in my article do I ever state that the range of discourse at Wesleyan is the only one worth preserving-though in a way I guess I do believe that's true. I certainly don't think the range of discourse at, say, Dartmouth is worth preserving. I'm, in fact, revolted by the kind of discourse that takes place there. But I can accept it so long as I have a space like Wesleyan. I don't endorse censorship in order to preserve what we do have at Wesleyan either. I wouldn't, for example, advocate that the WSA not fund the Wesleyan Republicans. If I endorse any particular tactic, it's the kind I explicitly cited in my article - making them feel unwelcome here.
I don't want Republicans to feel welcome here because I don't want to waste my time debating a body of thought that is so obviously dedicated to preserving the privileges of rich, white, heterosexual men. As far as I'm concerned, the more time we spend debating whether the flat tax is the best method for fueling the American economy, the less time we'll spend debating whether or not capitalism is a just economic system to start with.
You, Zack, I imagine seek a broader range of discourse at Wesleyan where we can discuss both questions. I'm skeptical that that's really possible. Moreover, I doubt that it could be done in a way that isn't marginalizing to the many groups at Wesleyan that do find this place to be a safe space. How will African-American students feel when people begin to question the existence of Malcom X house? How will queer students feel when Wespeaks start questioning their right to celebrate their sexuality openly?
Oh, wait - these things are already happening! Here's to the benefits of a broader range of discourse for everyone! A Wesleyan that's increasingly exactly the same as every other college in this wonderful country.

Why Staff and Students Should Quit University


Somewhere under the beautiful sky on any given day there exist places where every person can be at their best, doing what they believe to be right, creating themselves, and living up to their greatest potential.
For most of us a university is not such a place. Universities provide us with quantitatively valuable social contract but do not allow us to participate in the solutions to earth's problems. At university, we're inextricably connected to oppression as we are connected to the social and ecological problems we passively help to maintain.
We might agree that people need social contract, a healthy ecosystem, food and a warm place to sleep. For this most of us figure we need something called money (money can be exchanged for fruit, but unlike fruit it can be accumulated beyond one's needs without the visible and olfactory immorality of hoarding your own rotting pile of fruit). To get money we need a job. To get a job we need a "good" (valuable to the agenda of industrial capitalism) education. To get a good education we must go into debt. However, once in debt we become indentured labourers. A mortgage appeals to us more than rent so we go into debt again. We need a car as our lives are short on freedom and those TV commercials that we weren't really paying attention to have us associate cars and freedom. So deeper in debt we go. The debts lock in our slavery and the useless products we buy only provide us with fleeting amusement. and all around everyone seems to have chosen the same path. Is this accidental? Of course not. The banks, corporations, and the wealth lords must insure their survival through the continued strangle hold on the proletariat and the obedience and submission of the middle class.
Do we have a choice? We certainly do. Humans have been providing for themselves and their neighbors out of the bounty of the earth for millennia, before we consented to be fed by agribusinesses, clothed with synthetics, and entertained by the numbing blue flicker of network TV.
For four years I gave my money, time, and brain to a university so that I could solve math problems on a Friday night. There was little time to think beyond what CNN said about why the US military had gone to Iraq to kill people. There was no time to find out why so many products were being boycotted; no time to question pharmaceutical cures; no time to ponder the validity of science as a tool of understanding; no time for anything but competing with my brothers and sisters for the highest grades, so that I could make it to the top while they... well, who knows where they would go. For four years I bought the electricity that causes acid rain and coal miners' widows; the paper of deforestation; the chemically raised food which destroys topsoil; the products of multinational corporations who turn a blind eye to the torture and killings used to coerce labor; and the petroleum products which flood the beaches with oil and entertain us with the Gulf War. Looking back on those days, I am ashamed that I was participating in and co-operating with such a broad spectrum of evil. Now, with friends I am fighting these systems of oppression from outside the system. while far from perfect I think we have found our place and can see our potential. The radical solution to earth's problems are simple; what we need is the courage to implement our solutions.
Sincerely,
C. Derek Bower, Ganhdi Farm, Nova Scotia