The student senate has voted against ROCK's proposal to install U.S. flags permanently at all the classrooms at UCF. Nevertheless, President Hitt said he will install them if the funding appears. Shannon Burke, a right-wing radio talk show host, raised the money yesterday morning to give to ROCK.

My concern is that the faculty have been bypassed in this decision which affects us all. I urge you to consider introducing a resolution in the faculty senate opposing the permanent placement of flags in all of our classrooms.

I reject ROCK's proposal on the grounds that it will degrade the teaching environment.

I am not opposed to flags in the classroom, as long as they are there on a
temporary basis and can be part of a Socratic dialogue. I am opposed to
PERMANENT flags in the classroom because they would be counter to the
purposes of Socratic dialogue, which is one of my classroom methods.

I think a lot of the pressure on the university to install the flags
permanently in the classroom comes from people outside the university who
don't understand what a university is for -- or maybe they do understand it
and just don't like it. A university, as opposed to a technical school, is
not just teaching people a salable skill. It goes way beyond that. It's
goals are to teach the methods that lead to self-knowledge, critical
thinking skills, citizenship defined in its broadest sense (meaning
responsibility for one's locality, state, nation, and globe), and literacy,
which is the ability to read and write at a disciplinary level. These sills
are essential for leadership in a Republic, Plato argued. By no means are
these goals easy to achieve. There is no shortcut to achieving them.
Socratic dialogue is one of the primary methods we use at the university for
achieving our goals.

2500 years ago, Socrates invented dialogue as it is still practiced at the
university today. Who was he? Socrates was identified by the oracles as
the wisest man in ancient Greece. He was confused by this because he
admitted that he knew nothing. How could he be the wisest man if he only
knew that he did not know anything? He went to find out -- what he
discovered was that everyone else thought they knew something, but they had
not examined their beliefs and when their beliefs were scrutinized, they
fell apart. So Socrates was the wisest man because he didn't hold on to
beliefs that went unexamined. One of our tenets at the university is "The
unexamined life is not worth living." That comes from Socrates.

Dialogue was Socrates' method for testing beliefs. It was a mutual search
for the truth among lifelong friends who trusted one another and were
willing to exchange views without embarrassing each other about it later.

One of the questions I raise in Socratic dialogue (in my Visual Literacy
class, where we study flags) is: what is a flag? Is it a symbol? A piece of
fabric, the picture on the fabric? Is a picture of a flag on the Internet a
flag? If someone changes the colors on the flag to green and gold, is it
still a flag? Is a painting of a flag a flag? What's the difference between
a "real" flag and one that's not real? Views on these questions get
exchanged as clothing was in the Eleuzinian Rites (I wear your views, you
wear mine). It doesn't matter if you disagree with it; you try it on and
model it for others, and they model your views for you. You can make
comments about their modeling of your views, indicating if the modeling is
inaccurate, but in principle you have to cede control.

Socrates frequently went outside the city gates for his dialogues. One of
the reasons for this is that he knew that if people overheard the dialogue
it could be embarrassing for the participants. At UCF, we can't go outside
the city gates very easily with 42,000 students, so we go inside the
classroom. The classroom has to be a safer place to exchange views than any
other place -- safer than home, workplace, church -- all places which demand
that people stay within defined roles and where deviation from prescribed
views may be met with ridicule.

Dialogue is not debate and it's not dialectics (the clash of ideas) in which
you hold onto your "truth" with everything you've got and try to defeat any
opposing views.

The classroom is a liminal space, which means an "in-between" space where
things are in a state of flux. When someone or something enters the
classroom to play a part in a dialogue, he, she or it dissolves into pieces
(not literally, but figuratively) and these pieces get recombined in
different ways. You can't have too many things in the liminal space that
people don't want to see transformed, because that destroys the process.
Everything in a space must be allowed to become part of the dialogue, and
thus the dialogue is very sensitive to the space.

Dialogue is very fragile. It needs the proper conditions in order to work
and it needs certain constraints, but if you try to apply the wrong
constraints, it fails. The flag, if it were a permanent and officially
sanctioned part of the classroom would have a "chilling effect" on dialogue.
Not because the flag equals censorship or anything like that, but because it
would mean that the state was visibly represented in the space of dialogue,
to remind people people we are American or at least in America. Dialogue
can't be "in America" because the liminal space must be temporarily "outside America" for us to safely consider the values OF America. The space of dialogue has to be temporarily free from control of national identity. This doesn't mean it's a free-for-all.

Permanent flags on campus are fine in general, but there are some places
where they may not be appropriate. They may be appropriate in common areas
of college campuses or even in primary and some secondary school classrooms,
as well as technical institutes and so on, because the students there,
generally, are not engaged in dialogue.

I love America and one of the things I love most about it is that the state
doesn't intrude on your life everywhere as it does in countries like North
Korea, where devotion to flag and leader are mandatory.

Sincerely,

Barry Mauer

Dr. Mauer,

You almost had me won over until the last line about North Korea. I believe that that line belies your entire underlying premise that the flag is not a representation of the state, but rather a representation of state control.

In North Korea, or Iran, or China, or Russia, or any of other number of countries, the flag does represent the power and control of the state. Their flags are reminders of the omnipresence of the secret police and of the need to watch your words. In police states, you're absolutely correct in that the flag there would have a chilling effect on dialogue.

But here, if you were to propose that Bush stole the election or that we should change our form of government to a Marxian communist state or that the state is exerting too much control over the population or even that America is a land of inferior thinkers who should subjugate themselves to the whims of a One World Government (I'm not saying that you have said any of these things, I only bring them up as examples) you don't have to go home at night worrying about the Ray Ban man in the black suit knocking at your door to take you on the never-ending ride. You can say all those things, or even worse ones, without having to worry about anything other than embarrassment.

Now looking at embarrassment, what is wrong with being embarrassed about taking an off-the-wall position? On this site I've said a number of things that when I looked back, I thought "I said that?"

But I've found that embarrassment usually stems from a position in which I didn't have a strong belief. If I hold a strong belief with which others disagree and ridicule, if it is truly a strong belief, I feel no embarrassment over it. However, if the statement was flippant or the belief was weak, I do feel embarrassed and I use that as my cue to reassess.

If a student or professor is embarrassed to criticize the US' values in front of a classroom of peers - flag or no flag - then I don't believe that they are making a true statement of belief. If a position is embarrassing, it is because it has not been well thought through. And to use an embarrassing position as the basis for a dialogue is intellectually dishonest. It makes a mockery of the process of dialogue (Devil's advocate is a different situation. You may defend a position you don't believe in, but at the very least, you're honest about it and should realize that the dialogue won't be quite as effective as if it was with someone who truly believed the devil's advocate position.)

The state is already in the classroom. The state provides the classroom. It provides tuition subsides for in-state students and financial aid to help students attend when they otherwise couldn't afford to. The state provides visas for international students to come here and learn. The state in various shapes and forms is already in the classroom.

In a dialogue about the meaning of Hemingway's A Clean Well-Lighted Place, I don't really see how the flag could have a chilling effect. It would be an irrelevant decoration on a wall.

In a political debate, I can see where some might be embarrassed to make certain statements in view of a flag. But again, I come back to, if the statement is embarrassing, it probably isn't well thought through. I'll grant you that the presence of the flag will likely make stated positions more polarized, but your goal is critical thought, correct? A dialogue of polarized positions will force the participants to critically assess their positions to make them defensible. And more importantly, it will expose the irrational extremists on both sides of the issue (The ones who say "I love/hate the flag. If you don't like you can shut up and kiss off.")

I can see your point, especially your concern about the faculty being ignored. The instructors do have a right to have a voice in the debate also.

But I disagree with your position that a permanent display of the flag in the classrooms on campus will stifle effective dialogue. I believe quite the opposite. Because our flag is not a representation of state control, I believe that it will, in fact, encourage a more honest dialogue.

Besides, in a university there should be no sacred cows: not political correctness, not superiority of western civilization, and not the flag. Everything should be subject to be questioned and discussed. Some students won't like a frank dialogue on political correctness. Some wouldn't care for a discussion of western civilization. And some won't want to accept any view of the flag that deviates from their worldview. The first two topics get discussed, despite their prevalence and existence on campus and in the classroom. Why should a few close-minded students be the reason for the objecting the display of the flag on a permanent basis? Any student who is incapable of reasoned and rational dialogue on any topic is not critically thinking and for the university to pass a student like that is to do a great disservice to those of us who have already earned our degrees.

Chris,

I don’t quite understand your distinction between the state and state power. Certainly the state has power, doesn’t it? My point is that the U.S., which happens to be the most powerful state in the world, ever, does not project as much power over its citizens as other states do (I used North Korea as an extreme example). Does this mean that the U.S. government would never attempt to increase its power over its citizens? Certainly there have been times in the recent past when the U.S. imposed a draft, or when it went after people it suspected of being communist because they belonged to a charity.

Nevertheless, my gripe about flags in the classroom is not over projection of state power, and I believe you have “picked up the wrong thread” of my argument.

As in any formal debate, those who champion the affirmative position—in this case adding permanent flags to the classroom—have the burden of proof. They must prove that the status quo has disadvantages and that their proposal has advantages over it.

What advantages do the flags offer? They don’t offer any advantage to me as a teacher, and I have already pointed out why I think they will cause a disadvantage.

I don’t accept that the flags must be permanently installed in the classroom because the classroom is part of America, part of a state institution, etc. This argument ignores the question of advantages and disadvantages entirely.

Put flags in the hallway outside the classroom if you wish. Just leave my classroom alone. I am the one (along with my faculty advisors and mentors) who can best determine what the atmosphere of my classroom should be in order to produce the best learning experience. I know that this is an argument by authority (which I make in addition to the more reasoned argument about Socratic dialogue), but so be it. Would you presume to say what a doctor should and should not have in his office if you were not one yourself?

In any case, I don’t think you understand Socratic dialogue. If you want to read about it, see Tullio Maranhao’s 1990 anthology called The Interpretation of Dialogue.

Best,

Barry

Dr. Mauer,

I apologize for picking up on the wrong argument and will try to rectify that error. But in order to do so I need to ask you to indulge me for a moment longer in the distinction between state and state power, as it is critical to my argument and I think also the crux of our difference of opinion.

The state is more than just its power. The state is a body, an entity if you will, that is composed of many different traits including its values, its history, its people, and its power. The power of the state is but one small piece in the puzzle that makes up the overall state (hence my distinction). I believe that the flag is a representation of the state, not solely its power.

UCF has a very diverse student body, made up of 42,000 students with a not insignificant number of them having come from overseas. When I was finishing up my degree I can remember meeting students from Saudi Arabia, from Pakistan, from China, and from Russia: countries that are not known for their acceptance of diversity in opinion. For many of these students from oppressive countries, there was an instilled and automatic fear of anyone in a position of authority.

More than once I was told, "In my country I have to be careful of what I say, but I know when I see that flag (referring to the US flag), I am free to say what I want." For them, the flag was not a symbol of state power; it was a symbol of freedom. It was a symbol that they were allowed to participate in a debate without fear of arrest, beating or possible execution.

Even among native born students there is oftentimes a fear of the power of the instructor. The uncompromising leftism of many instructors is, in my opinion, the biggest factor in silencing dialogue or debate in the University. Many students fear upsetting or contradicting their instructor because they believe that freedom of speech ends once they enter the classroom and that retribution will be dished out for dissenting opinion. And sometimes it is. Here is but one example. Is it an extreme example? Probably, but it does highlight the fact that there are instructors who are not interested in free speech or the Socratic dialogue.

The flag in the classroom will act as a reminder to foreign students and students with opinions different than that of the instructor that the classroom is, in fact, a free speech zone. It will remind the students that they have a right to hold their own opinion and to express that opinion without fear of retribution. It is a message that is needed in many, many classrooms - even at UCF (I too had some of the uncompromising instructors when I was out there).

For a professor, like yourself, who truly values dialogue and difference of opinion, the flag likely is an unnecessary symbol in the classroom. Unfortunately, many of those around you have not held in high regard those same ideals and a counter to their extremism is needed. No instructor has the right to lord over and oppress their students or to dictate the only acceptable beliefs that the students may hold. Too many instructors have started to do so and as such, a symbol of the student's right to be an individual is needed.

Now that I've made my argument, I'd like to challenge two of your positions, if I may.

First, do you have an example of where the presence of an American flag in a classroom has had a chilling effect on dialogue or debate? I have seen this argument bandied about quite a bit with the air that it is generally accepted fact. I have done some quick research and cannot find any study or objective example of the existence of such an effect.

And second, I'd like to challenge you on your argument by authority. I don't believe that the instructor is the sole arbiter of what is the best learning environment in the classroom. Learning, like any form of communication, is a two way street. The student should also have a say in what the classroom environment is like. There should be multiple inputs into to the best classroom environment as the goal is to foster learning, not necessarily to make you feel as comfortable as possible.

As for your question about the doctor, the answer is yes, I will question him if I think that he doesn't have the proper tools. He is more educated than I in medical matters, and I will accept his reasoning if I think it is sound, but just because he has a medical degree and I don't doesn't mean that I should have no say in the quality of my medical care. So yes, I have, and will continue, to question a doctor who I think doesn't have the proper supplies.

As a patient, I have a right and a responsibility to care about and to ensure a high quality of medical care. As a UCF graduate, I have a right and a responsibility to care about and work to ensure the continuing value of my degree. And as a once again prospective student, I have a right and a responsibility to be concerned about the quality of the education and the educational environment into which I will be reentering.

If I ever get the money together to head back out there, I might just have to try to audit one of your classes. I'm guessing that you make them pretty interesting.

Chris,

The division between the state and state power is fuzzy at best. It should be the topic of discussion in class, rather than an assumption made in advance. I have written about this topic in a short section of my article "Speaking Freely in a Time of War" which is available online at http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~bmauer/Free.html.

Also, the flag means different things to different people in different contexts. Maybe to your Saudi friend it means freedom from state interference. Maybe to someone whose parents were targeted during the McCarthy period, it means oppression. Which one is right? I believe the question of who is right is silly: precisely why the flag should be a topic of dialogue rather than an imposed part of the dialogic environment.

As far as the point about instructors is concerned: teachers are not allowed to grade based on their personal opinions. If they do, there is a grievance procedure.

Also, teachers are not required to be Socratic. Teachers are allowed, in other words, to have an "agenda." So what if it's left or right? I want a teacher to have an agenda, a strong one. Why? because I know that if I am getting a degree I am going to have 30+ teachers and I want to have positions clearly and strongly put so I can formulate my own positions clearly and strongly too.

Now, as to the question of whether teachers should set the agenda in the classroom, I stand by my position. Of course students should have a say and raise questions, but students are not in charge of setting priorities for a discipline because they do not know the discipline well enough to make those kinds of decisions. Imagine if we let students decide what they neede to learn to get a degree!

I set up my syllabi these days with a list of various goals they are expected to meet. These goals come from the university, the discipline, the college, the department, and the broader community. Of course students have their own goals too, and I want them to articulate those goals -- I leave a space for it on the syllabus -- but they do not control the other goals which have been set for them. If they do not like these goals, they can vote with their feet.

Please take a look at Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0716733870/102-6127942-9585720?v=glance.
He has a chapter on "feedback loops" that is very influential on me and helped me consider the flag debate in greater depth. Basically, he argues that societies go through periods in which people look for scapegoats for their problems. They find self-reinforcing arguments for believing what they already believe. My point here is that the flag debate serves as a way to scapegoat people who don't like the flag. They're "Anti-American" in advance, and it plays into whole sets of pseudo-arguments about the dangers facing the country that have nothing to do with reality.

I can cite numerous examples of the "chilling effects" of flag hysteria if you want, including this one:

Twelve years ago, I spoke on television in opposition to the proposed
flag burning amendment. My speech was broadcast live in the Twin Cities
(Minneapolis and St. Paul). When I left the television studio, a man
was waiting for me. He jumped out of his truck, punched me in the face and
said he was going to kill me. He then jumped into his truck and drove away
when my friends appeared at the scene. I was too stunned to record his
license plate number and thus I never reported the incident to the police.

My fear is that the flag issue is too hot, that innocent people who are critical of the flag in our classrooms will be targets for intimidation
or worse, just as I was targeted twelve years ago for speaking openly about a public issue. Do we want to invite this kind of thing at UCF? I want a peaceful atmosphere on campus in which to work and teach. I see no reason to ignite the kinds of passions here that flared in Minneapolis twelve years ago.

Best,

Barry Mauer

I think it is my turn to be misunderstood.

I was not trying to propose that the students be allowed to determine the lessons to be learned. I was merely attempting to argue that the students should have a right to help determine the intangibles, like the atmosphere in the classroom, that create an effective learning environment. By no means was I trying to suggest that they should have anything more than an inquisitive effect on the course requirements.

Now your self-reinforcing argument plays both ways, does it not? The flag debate can also serve to scapegoat those who are pro-flag. They are immediately viewed as anti-free speech before the debate ever starts and that in turn plays into another set of pseudo-arguments about the dangers facing America, including the dilution of the Constitution and the chilling of disagreeable speech.

I never approached this debate with the assumption that you were anti-American or unpatriotic or any guilty of any other "undesirable" trait. And I would hope that you didn't approach this argument with the assumption that I was out to strip you of your right to free speech or academic freedom. One of the reasons why debates like this can get so heated is because of the assumed baggage that is brought by both sides, which tends to hamper their ability to rationally understand or appreciate the opposing position.

What happened to you in Minneapolis is regrettable, reprehesible, and unfortunately representative of the actions of a cowardly, inarticulate extremist.

I don't mean any disrespect here, but has it really had a chilling effect on your willingness to speak a position that may be potentially unpopular? From everything I've seen and everything that you have described in the previous comments, you don't seem to have any qualms about staking out your position and defending it.

Chris,

I think a permanent flag is the classroom is a tangible, rather than an intangible, as you call it, though it may depend on who you talk to about it.

For instance, I teach every level of college, from incoming freshmen to graduating PhD students. I can imagine that for the freshmen, a flag in the classroom would not be so shocking. It would seem much like their high school classrooms.

Part of the problem of such an environment for me is that it makes my job more difficult. I must try to differentiate college from high school for these students. College is (in large part) about (inter)disciplinarity and professionalization, things that are marginal at best in high school. If the college classroom looks like a high school classroom, that makes my job harder.

I have been in a lot of PhD seminars. PhD students are unlikely to be persuaded by any simple appeal to uncritical patriotism. To them, the flag would probably be resented for creating an "infantalizing" atmosphere.

Your claim that the flag argument works both ways, and that pro-flag people can be scapegoated too is, I admit, true in principle. But let's look at the local facts. Pro-flag people started the drama at UCF by proposing flags in every classrooms. Did they do it so they could scapegoat themselves?

The pro flag people (ROCK and whoever is pulling their puppet strings) have established themselves as a group who will intimidate and harass anti-war critics. They proved this in the spring many times over. I see the flag issue and the anti-speech issue as connected. To me, ROCK is trying to create a feedback loop wherein critics of U.S. policies are seen as traitors, and thus to blame for problems befalling America.

Now, as you mention, it is possible for things to swing the other way, but that is not the dominant trend at the moment. Poll after poll taken outside the university shows very little sympathy for those who oppose putting the flags in the classrooms. People like Shannon Burke have targeted anti-flag critics on the radio, giving out their personal phone numbers and telling their lunatic fringe to harass them, something the lunatic fringe has been happy to do.

Now at the tail end of a feedback loop, what often happens is that the accusers (the group doing the scapegoating) will often target too many innocent people, or target the wrong innocent people (as the Blair administration seemed to do when it targeted David Kelley). The accusers then become the accused and the feedback look starts running in reverse, often with innocent people on the other side getting targeted. Maybe we'll get to that point here, where flag pushers get tarred as zealots and fascists, etc. Right now, however, though we may hear those charges from a few people, the charges don't stick.

As to your question about whether I was accusing you of trying to strip me of my free speech or academic freedom--of course not. I see this as a friendly exchange. But I do see ROCK as trying to do these things.

As for whether I feel chilled in any way -- yes I do. I have a young family now and I must think of them. I have gotten hate mail before, including threats. I can't afford to bring that kind of thing down on my wife and daughter, or myself, now that others are dependent on me. I must choose my forums more carefully and choose my words more carefully too. I wish I could participate in more forums, but it is unwise for me.

I happen to know, also, that many of my colleagues feel as I do, but are even more worried than I am about speaking out in the current environment. We are looking for protection for ourselves.

Some good may come of all this yet. If the faculty get organized to speak out and defend themselves, that will have been worth it for me. I will then have to say, "thank you, ROCK!"

Best,

Barry

I must admit I've never listened to Shannon Burke's show (and have no real desire to as given the current state of conservative commentating I can certainly believe that your statements of her actions are accurate), but I believe that the current polling you mention is simply represnetative of the general Orlando community and not the result of right wing ranting. Just because a large portion of the population has an opposing position doesn't mean that we're all trying to scapegoat. While some, like Ms. Burke, may be engaging in that type of behavior, some of us simply have a different opinion on the matter. As with any large group, the actions of a vocal, extremist minority should not (but often do) serve as a reflection of the values or actions of the majority.

I unfortuneately agree with your statement that reversals in the feedback loop cycle are usually the result of extremism. I would like to think that, as a group, we could debate issues without resorting to namecalling and scapegoating, as we have done here, but to think that is possible is just a touch naive.

Theoretical question: is there a difference between choosing not to speak before a particular audience and a restraint of free speech?

Chris,

Shannon is a girl's name, but he's a he.

Anyway, I do differentiate between people like Burke, who seem to be inciting people to commit hate crimes, and the ordinary citizen who may be confused, may have vague feelings one way or the other, but does not commit cimes based on these feelings. I would like to reason with that citizen, but of course that is not an easy thing to carry off these days.

As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter what the issue is or whether the inciter is left or right, he is still wrong.

So, perhaps the current polls of Orlando have little to do with right wing ranting, but just as an example, look at this poll from Fox News website:

"YES, I think the student government should fund the flag project, and the flags should be installed in every classroom! 83%
NO, I think the student government can find better ways to spend their funds, and the flags simply aren't needed. 17%"

I especially like the exclamation point after the "YES" option. It is very fair and balanced with the period after the "NO" option. Of course, FOX's audience is probably predisposed to agree with the company's position, which they have made very clear through their "news" stories.

I think the media have a role in stoking public opinion, by no means a small role. Please see Wlater Lippmann's book entitled Public Opinion and Pratkanis and Aronson's The Age of Propaganda for more info.

One thing in particular about the media in our society that affects these kinds of outcomes is that very few media outlets would ever touch on the debate here in your blog, except to take a couple quotes out of context and distort the whole thing in a couple of "soundbites." Getting sustained attention to single issue seems to be next to impossible.

Witness the incredible lack of knowledge most Americans ssem to have about 9/11 and Iraq, which were the two most covered topics of the past two years. Most American's think that all or some of the 9/11 attackers were Iraqi, but none were. Most think that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, but none have. The list goes on. Where do these distorted views of the world come from?

The chill I speak about for myself is only partly a chill brought on by the flag issue. It is also a chill brought on by my recognition of how the media might distort anything I might say, how the feedback loop in Florida is increasingly right wing and dangerous to dissenters, and a fear for my job in an environment where professors are being selectively targeted for speaking out with views that the administration of the schools don't share.

To me, "free speech" isn't an abstract thing, really. It's situational. It is all about the question of whether I can or should speak out on a particular topic in a particular situation. When I notice that it is increasingly difficult to do so safely, I conclude that I have less of it.

Best,

Barry

Ah, but getting quoted out of context is one of my favorite things! It's happened enough that I just accept it as part of the territory.

Is Florida, or even Central Florida, truly moving towards the right? If anything, I've noticed the region becoming more polarized. Seminole County has certainly moved towards the right, but Orange County - the major population base in the region - has moved towards the left. So I don't view the state as moving in only one direction, but as moving in opposite and more extreme directions.

Unfortunately, you are correct in your assertation that ignorance of basic facts is rampant. You are also correct in your assertation that the Fox News poll you highlighted does have an internal bias.

But for every right biased story or poll that Fox or the Wall Street Journal puts out, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC or the New York Times will put out a similarly left biased article or poll. I don't think that the major problem in America is a media bias, but rather is an unwillingness of many to go and seek out the opposing position so that they can make an informed and rational decision. We have, as a society, become intellectually lazy and willing to accept whatever garbage a media outlet feeds us.

I will probably be out on campus around the 16th of this month (job fair), I may try to hunt you down :) to continue the free speech debate in person, as I've found that it is one that is better debated face to face where points of misunderstanding can be immediately read and reacted to.

Chris,

I agree with your analysis of the media to a point. I believe that recent works by Joel Conason and others address the issue of media "bias" better than I can. Of course the radio is indisputably right wing . . . still I don't want to get into the argument over bias.

Rather, my point is that the media functions as entertainment rather than a "theoria" (the group in ancient Greece trusted to issue a report on the known facts from which public decisions would be based), which is what the media should be if we wqant a healthy democracy. The "sound-bite" mentality of the media, the interest in simple narratives, conflict, and putting "pictures in our heads" (the pulling down of the Saddam statue), make reasoned deliberate thouight about any complex issues virtualy impossible.

You may be correct about polarization in society. Part of the problem is increasing solipsism, which means interest only in one's existing beliefs; you point to this problem in your latest response. Therefore people who are already right wing only listen to O'Reilly and Coulter and those on the left only listen to Franken and Moore. Of course there are people willing to listen to all sides and reach their own conclusions, but they are becoming endangered species.

Do look me up in person when you visit UCF, not because there's greater hope of avoiding misunderstanding (I feel that writing may be better at promoting understanding depending on the "ground rules"), but because it's good to put a face to a name.

Best,

Barry

Mauer why don't you just get over with it and admit you hate the American flag? I'd like to correct you on some facts, as a student at UCF, I attended that SGA meeting for the vote and the vote was whether or not to use student funds to pay for the flags, NOT whether or not they should be in the classroom. The administration already approved whether the flags could be in the classroom last Spring. Frankly, those classrooms are not YOUR classrooms, the university is there because of the students not the professors. I have seen an awful lot of lengthy letters to the editor and posts from you all over online. You have WAY too much time on your hands. There's nothing wrong with the American flag.

Dear Jen,

I don't like when people misrepresent my positions as you do here, but I've come to expect it. I do not hate the American flag. That you would reduce my complex arguments to such a simple cause is insulting.

As I have said many times in many places (I assume you've seen it), I have no problem with the flag in front of Millican Hall.

To clarify the facts of the SGA senate vote, the senators voted on the funding issue and voted it down, but their refusal to fund the flags was clearly related to concerns that went far beyond any monetary issues.

When I am in the classrooms, they are my classrooms. I choose what to put in the syllabus, what materials to bring in, how I am going to present those materials, how I am going to organize discussions, etc. Do the students decide these things? Would you have them make these decisions?

Now, as to whether I have too much time on my hands -- I am glad that you are concerned about whether I spend my time effectively. You shouldn't worry, however. In the past three months I have submitted four academic articles for publication, am finishing three more, produced one CD of original music and am finishing two more, taught three classes and prepared three more for next Spring, wrote several grants, and participated in academic debates on campus (including the flag debate, though not exclusively). What have you done?

Best,

Barry