|
|
| Author |
Message |
Tom |
|
Post subject: UMUC graduation address bashes America - students protest
 Posted: Jun 14, 2005 - 08:50 AM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 03, 2005
Posts: 84
Status: Offline
|
|
News from this morning's Stars and Stripes. Was anyone at this commencement address? I'd like to hear some first hand accounts.
| Quote: | Controversy lingers after UMUC speech some considered anti-American
By Nancy Montgomery, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Tuesday, June 14, 2005
A local expert on German-American relations recently gave new University of Maryland graduates something to talk about — and, in some cases, chant about — with a commencement address some thought bashed America.
“He starting talking about [President Bush’s] 2002 State of the Union address, the axis of evil, you’re either with us or against us — and that’s when it started going downhill,” said Cheryl Atwood, a commissary technology specialist who received her Bachelor of Science degree at the May 29 ceremony.
“At first, I thought, “I’m being overly sensitive.’ Then I heard somebody in the back shouting ‘USA! USA!’ and I thought, ‘Maybe I’m not taking it wrong.’ Several people got up and left and people stood up waving, telling him to sit down.”
Atwood’s husband was upset enough to leave the ceremony at the Patrick Henry Village pavilion, so that when his wife walked on stage to get her diploma, she couldn’t find him in the crowd. “It really dampened his mood,” she said. “So it really dampened mine.”
Professor Detlef Junker, founder and director of the Heidelberg Center for American Studies, a self-professed great admirer of the United States — and the man who gave the address positing German-American relations were at their lowest ebb since World War II because of Bush administration policies — said he’s just the messenger.
“I still think it’s a balanced and fair statement and it is a correct European perspective,” Junker said Monday. “I thought on that day of history I should not only give some general niceties but say something substantial. After all, this is Jefferson’s first principle: Americans cannot be both ignorant and free.”
Junker has subsequently received several e-mails and letters, some, especially from faculty, supporting him. One letter writer, though, called him a Nazi.
“It was below the belt,” Junker said. “I threw it immediately in the basket.”
John Golembe, director of the University of Maryland University College Europe, also dealt with a number of unhappy graduates and attendees who called or e-mailed him to complain.
“I say, ‘If this bothered you and you think your day was spoiled, I’m sorry for that,’” Golembe said.
But Golembe, who’s been with the University of Maryland Heidelberg program for the past 26 years, said Junker’s speech fell squarely within the tradition of college commencement speeches. There are basically two types, he said. One type is full of praise for graduates’ accomplishments.
That’s what Atwood had hoped to hear. “For graduation I want to hear feel-good stuff: ‘Way to go! You did great!’ ” she said.
The second sort of commencement address deals with issues.
“They want to convey a message. Sometimes when they do that, the message can be controversial,” Golembe said. One woman later told him she was disappointed that he didn’t get up and drag Junker off the stage, Golembe said. But others have asked him for a copy of the speech. “It was interesting this year, that’s for sure,” he said.
Junker said that, as a scholar, he could be expected only to talk about issues.
“I think in the best tradition of an academic, you tell facts and talk about reality,” he said. “I wanted to tell them because they’re not aware of what’s going on in Europe. I’m deeply concerned about it.”
While he was speaking — about the “almost free fall of the reputation of the U.S.,” which he credited to several Bush administration policies, foremost, the “unilateral self-empowerment of the United States through the doctrine of the pre-emptive strike” — Junker wasn’t sure what was happening with the crowd of more than 1,000 people.
“There were some people saying something but I was so concentrated on my talk,” he said. “I looked into the faces and some nodded, so I got mixed signals.”
Afterward he knew. It wasn’t just the booing. One graduate came on stage, stopped and saluted the flag and then looked directly at Junker. “He gave me a very nasty look,” Junker said.
Source: Stars and Stripes
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: UMUC graduation address bashes America - students protes
Posted: Jun 24, 2005 - 08:01 AM
|
|
|
|
I'd have loved to read the actual address which Prof. Junker gave to be better able to judge for myself. Perhaps you can write him to get the full transcript.
In any case, I suspect that he may have been presenting the facts as he (and likely most poli-sci watchers) sees them. It's not easy being an American abroad nowadays and I imagine it must be exceptionally difficult being a US soldier in Europe, given the present political climate. Therefore, I can indeed understand the sensitivity with which folks in the US military community might react to such a speech. One wonders if it was wise to have the kind of speaker who was going to talk about current affairs rather than the kind of speaker who would just pass along praise to the graduates for their accomplishment.
The bottom line is that Prof. Junker was probably telling a difficult truth. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tom |
|
|
Post subject: Full text of Dr. Detlef Junker's graduation address
Posted: Jun 24, 2005 - 12:22 PM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 03, 2005
Posts: 84
Status: Offline
|
|
Since I first posted the article, Stars and Stripes has added the full text of Dr. Junker's graduation speech. Here it is:
| Quote: | Full text of Dr. Detlef Junker's UMUC-Europe graduation address
Stars and Stripes
Online edition, Wednesday, June 15, 2005
The full text of "The United States, Germany and Europe: A Historian's Perspective," a commencement address delivered by Dr. Detlef Junker at University of Maryland University College — Europe on May 29, 2005:
Regent Pevenstein, Regent Acosta, President Heeger, Director Golembe, distinguished representatives of the U.S. military community, honored guests and friends, and most of all, Members of the Class of 2005.
I am deeply moved by the distinction awarded to me by the University of Maryland, a great institution which has left its marks on every continent. I have to confess: When I heard the exciting news about the conferring of an honorary doctorate, I discovered that I am not completely free from vanity — yet.
This award is an encouragement for me to continue doing what I have done in the last thirty-five years: fostering understanding and cooperation between the United States and Germany, both as a citizen and as a scholar. I feel revitalized at a moment in world history when I am deeply concerned about the current state of American-European and American-German relations, about the growing transatlantic divide, the growing anti-Europeanism in the United States, the growing anti-Americanism in Europe and in Germany, and the almost free fall of the reputation of the U.S., especially in Old Europe documented repeatedly in public opinion polls.
The trademark of historians is the long-range perspective. Therefore, I would like to place my current concerns in a historical perspective. Only then do we understand the origin and significance of the current transatlantic drift.
Don't worry. In spite of this historical perspective I'll try to be brief because I know there's nothing more agonizing than a long speech by a German history professor.
From a geo-strategic perspective, containing the power of the German nation-state in the center of Europe had been a leitmotif of American policy in Europe since the age of imperialism, when Kaiser Wilhelm II's Germany and an imperial America outgrew their status as regional powers to become competing world powers. Germany did not become a problem for the United States until it threatened to rise to the level of hegemonic power or oppressor of Europe.
Unlike Germany's European neighbors, the distant United States never feared the German nation-state created in 1871, but always the rival world power. That is why the United States not only fought the Germany of Wilhelm and the Nazis in two world wars, but also sought to contain and stabilize the Weimar Republic and since 1949 the Federal Republic. European stability and German containment belonged to the strategic objectives of American foreign policy in the twentieth century, from Woodrow Wilson to George Bush.
Therefore, it is no exaggeration to argue that in our massive two-volume handbook "The United States and Germany in the Era of the Cold War, 19451990" we documented one of the biggest success stories of U.S. foreign policy in the twentieth century and a shining example of democratic nation building. The American military has been a vital part of this success story as has been the University of Maryland University College-Europe. Including their families, about 14 million Americans were stationed in Germany from 1945-1990. This was one of the biggest military operations of this kind in history.
After 1945 the pacification and democratization of Germany was among the central goals of American foreign policy. Under the influence of the Cold War, the United States incorporated the Western part of Germany into an Atlantic community — of security, values, production, consumption, information, leisure, travel, and entertainment — under American hegemony. Berlin, which had been the headquarters of evil from 1933 to 1945, became not only a symbol of the Cold War and a divided world but also an outpost of freedom, the "city upon the hill" on which the eyes of the world were focused.
In 1989/90 the unification of Germany under Western conditions produced nearly the best possible Germany: a medium-sized democratic country in Europe with limited political influence and international economic significance, a Germany which lacked any vital conflicts of interest with the United States, was integrated into and contained by European and Atlantic institutions, incapable of and uninterested in threatening its European neighbors.
It is largely because of the United States that the citizens of the "old" Federal Republic enjoyed freedom, democracy, prosperity, consumption, modernity, and mobility like no other generation of Germans before them. On a personal level, my own privileged life would not have been possible without the United States and the many friendships with Americans. On an even more existential level, security or destruction — the physical survival of the Germans or their potential extermination in a nuclear holocaust — depended on the decisions of American presidents. Ultimately, all Germans owe their unity, on the one hand, to Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, and, on the other, to the determined and consistent support of the United States. It was these two superpowers who divided and united Germany. Its European neighbors played a considerable role in both processes, but not a decisive one.
In 1989/90 the future of American-German relations looked bright when President Bush and Chancellor Kohl proclaimed that the two nations would become "partners in leadership". Most contemporaries agreed with their optimism. In spite of growing differences and minor conflicts between the United States and a united Germany during the two administrations of President Clinton, the importance of the transatlantic alliance was still taken for granted. President Clinton and Chancellor Helmut Kohl got along quite well.
Even after 9/11, after the terrorist attacks, the European continent overflowed with spontaneous symbols of what the German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder at that time called "unconditional solidarity". Millions held vigils, rallies and prayer services. In Berlin 200,000 gathered at the site of the fallen Berlin Wall to express their grief. Recalling President Kennedy's famous words "Ich bin ein Berliner", they shouted "We are New Yorkers". In France Le Monde ran a banner headline declaring "Nous sommes tous Americains."
And then, contrary to all expectations, three years and four months ago came the turning point in transatlantic relations clearly caused, in European eyes, by the 2002 State of the Union Address of President George W. Bush.
Since January 2002, the historian of American-European and American-German relations has become a messenger of bad news. Let me, therefore, remind you of the most basic tradition in diplomacy: messengers should neither be beheaded nor hanged. I trust that I will be able to leave this room alive.
The problems with the Europeans and other parts of the world started the moment President George W. Bush opened the Pandora's Box by unilaterally and single-mindedly broadening America's mission after 9/11. In his 2002 State of the Union Address, President Bush did not focus on Al Qaeda and the work which remained to be done in Afghanistan, but rather on the so-called "Axis of Evil", singling out North Korea, Iran and Iraq.
The next step of escalation was to link the threat of weapons of mass destruction with the threat of terrorism.
When the Bush administration published its famous National Security Strategy in September 2002, it even went one step further. From the European perspective the Bush administration destroyed the very basis of International Law by openly making pre-emptive strikes — or anticipatory self-defense — the new centerpiece of its national security policy. From September 2002 to this day, the unilateral self-empowerment of the United States through the doctrine of pre-emptive strike has, perhaps more than anything else, darkened the Bush administration's reputation in Europe and the world.
A second issue closely related to the doctrine of pre-emptive strike became a bone off contention between U.S. and European governments and spilled over into a heated European debate leading to massive criticism of the U.S. in the European and German media. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction represented a "clear and present danger" to the security of the United States and that somehow Saddam Hussein was, as a part of the Al Qaeda network, co-responsible for 9/11. Every educated American and European knew, however, that Saddam Hussein was a secular tyrant and dictator. Therefore, cooperation with Bin Laden was extremely unlikely.
The majority of Europeans together with a majority of the U.N. Security Council demanded reasonable proof of the existence of weapons of mass destruction before they would vote for a war message against Iraq.
Of course, we now know that the Bush administration either misled or deceived the American people and its allies into this war. We now know that the Iraqi dictator had been reduced to a toothless tiger by the first Gulf War and by the United Nations weapons inspectors. Iraq's weapons programs had been shut down, Saddam had no threatening weapons stockpile. There was no "clear and present danger" to the security of the United States.
This brings me to an even more disturbing part of my address. The following reasons for the massive loss of American reputation and legitimacy of U.S. foreign affairs might indeed be labeled anti-American because they go beyond the criticism of the Bush administration and aim at the heart of what the United States represents today.
First: There is an ever increasing European concern about this uncontrollable Goliath called the United States of America. It seems that the U.S. is about to repeat the sad old story of the hubris of power. Since January 2002, the European public gradually discovered that the pre-emptive strike doctrine, the exaggeration of threats and the blatant disregard of international law were all parts and parcel of a new superpower design, based on an extreme version of U.S. unilateralism, exceptionalism and moralism; a superpower version, almost impossible to digest for Europe, not to speak of Latin America, East Asia and of the Muslim world.
A group of revolutionary conservatives persuaded the president that he not only has the power but also the mission to tell the rest of the world: either you are with us or against us; that allies are useful only insofar as they unequivocally do what the U.S. wants; indeed, that the United Nations and NATO are merely toolboxes to be used whenever the president and the Pentagon see fit to do so. Diplomats have called this attitude unilateralism.
On September 15, 2001 President Bush told his advisors in Camp David: "At some point, we may be the only ones left. That's okay with me. We are America". In the present Iraq, the U.S. is indeed almost the only one left.
Second: The almost universal criticism in Europe of President Bush also derives from the fact that the predominantly secular Europeans are simply unable to understand the values and the belief system of this President twice reborn. Only very few Europeans know that the President is the latest incarnation of America's missionary impulse, of Wilsonian universalism, of the civil religion so specific to America, of that unmistakable mixture of Christian republicanism and democratic faith which created a nation with the soul of a church.
The Europeans were baffled when Bush told the American people and the world in his 2003 State of the Union Address: "The liberty we praise is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity". Indirectly equating America's resolve to go to war against Iraq with God's will did not only anger the Pope and scores of Protestant Church leaders, but was also seen by a lot of Christians as a gross violation of the Third Commandment: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
Third: The mishandling of the relationship between Freedom and Security in the United States. For the first time in American history, American citizens and non-citizens alike have been seized by the executive branch of government and put into prison without being charged with a crime, without having the right to a trial, without being able to see a lawyer, and without even being able to contact their families. These gross and unnecessary violations of human rights have severely damaged U.S. moral authority and goodwill not only in Europe, but in the entire world. In fact, these violations have undermined U.S. authority and have made U.S. efforts to continue promoting human rights around the world illegitimate. The mistreatment and torture of prisoners in U.S. installations in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq reinforces this European perspective; notwithstanding the fact that these reports are clearly instrumentalized by a number of governments to start and manipulate hate campaigns against the U.S.
Ladies and Gentlemen, to explain the current transatlantic drift fully, of course, I would have to shift the perspective around and analyze the American perspective of Europe, especially of liberal and democratic Old Europe. That would clearly transcend the time limit of my commencement address. Let me, therefore, only add on sentence: While the European criticism of the U.S. can be summed up as "Arrogance of Power", Americans criticize the Europeans as having "Arrogance without Power".
Members of the class of 2005, due to your study and stay in Europe, you have enriched your life through a transatlantic dimension, which cannot be taken for granted. Transatlantic cooperation and understanding is a precious thing and should be an option for future generations as well. 1 am deeply convinced that a further deterioration of the American-European relations, in general, and of the American-German relations, in particular, would be a loss of historic proportion.
I still believe that virtually no major problem in today's globalized world can be solved without a forceful cooperation between the old and the new world. We do not need a new U.S. Declaration of Independence from Europe or a European Declaration of Independence from the United States. What we need is a new transatlantic Declaration of Interdependence.
Source: Stars and Stripes
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tom |
|
|
Post subject: A graduation speech should mention the graduates
Posted: Jul 04, 2005 - 09:53 AM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 03, 2005
Posts: 84
Status: Offline
|
|
I found two references to the graduating class in Dr. Junker's speech--one in the opening paragraph and one at the end. Here they are:
| Quote: | | Regent Pevenstein, Regent Acosta, President Heeger, Director Golembe, distinguished representatives of the U.S. military community, honored guests and friends, and most of all, Members of the Class of 2005. |
| Quote: | | Members of the class of 2005, due to your study and stay in Europe, you have enriched your life through a transatlantic dimension, which cannot be taken for granted. |
Dr. Junker devotes more text to his own accomplishments than the graduates' accomplishments:
| Quote: | I am deeply moved by the distinction awarded to me by the University of Maryland, a great institution which has left its marks on every continent. I have to confess: When I heard the exciting news about the conferring of an honorary doctorate, I discovered that I am not completely free from vanity — yet.
This award is an encouragement for me to continue doing what I have done in the last thirty-five years: fostering understanding and cooperation between the United States and Germany, both as a citizen and as a scholar. |
I can see how graduates would feel slighted. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Frederick |
|
|
Post subject: RE: A graduation speech should mention the graduates
Posted: Jul 13, 2005 - 02:39 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 7
Status: Offline
|
|
Tom,
I wouldn't give them that much credit.
Without the benefits of being there (i.e., without the benefit of discerning nonverbal cues and the ambiance): On the one hand he couldn't have picked a more divisive topic, given the likelihood of politically conservative sentiment among the audience. On the other hand, the audience could be considered rude for their intolerance in an academic setting. I certainly would have been flabbergasted to see the crowd leaving in such a setting. There are few places beyond an academic setting one can find such erudite views, and these deserve some level of respect. Frankly, I'm appalled the audience could not stomach this, let alone display disrespectful behavior for a different, educated, viewpoint. It's a bit sad, in a way.
Higher educational institutions stand for this very sort of academic freedom to express political intellectualism. To simply dismiss it without thought or respect (as many seem to have done) is immature and shows deep disrespect not only for the person but what the institution represents. Bah...... the irony... But then again if you're there for your culinary arts degree or BS in "commissary technology" ............. maybe he did pick the wrong audience. In this way it's sad because he overestimated the crowd. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Jason |
|
|
Post subject: RE: A graduation speech should mention the graduates
Posted: Jul 19, 2005 - 02:16 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 14, 2005
Posts: 12
Status: Offline
|
|
| I don't see anything inappropriate with the Doctor's speech. These are the sorts of issues adults/college grads must deal with: I think Frederick hit the nail on the head: if the Doctor did anything wrong at all, it was his overestimation of the crowd. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: The European Division Speech
Posted: Feb 04, 2006 - 06:58 PM
|
|
|
|
I was there, and people were visibly upset. You have to take into account that the audience was made up of a great many soldiers and airman, probably mostly form within the UMUC program in Germany. Others in the audience may have included civil servants working for the Army or Air Force, and family members.
These are the groups that make up the student population of the European Division, and pay the tuition that keeps UMUC in business in Europe. It's a pretty conservative lot, for the most part.
The UMUC program in Europe doesn't really rock their academic boat. The textbooks are thin, condensed, and simple. Classes are conducted by faculty that haven't really done much since fleeing the United States. The administrators are terrified of losing the Army contract, and with it their jobs.
Many of the professors in Europe have been around for 10, 20, and in some cases 30 years. Their little job keeps them in Europe on a tax-free basis. They don't tend to travel to academic conferences, and they don't tend to venture far from the military installations to which they are assigned. Some, for example, have been in Germany for years, yet speak a very basic tourist German, if that.
The administrators of UMUC in Europe (those that select the texbooks, for example, and administer the academic programs) have also been around for 10 or 20 years, for the most part. They couldn't get jobs in academic programs in the States because they really haven't done much outisde UMUC Europe. They tend to cater to the contract, the students/customers, dumb down the courses, and keep the program afloat on the cheap...and all fom Heidelberg.
So, someone shows up and delivers a provocative graduation day speech and all hell breaks loose till the devil won't have it. Why? I expect it has something to do with the fact that the UMUC program in Europe isn't a very good program, because it's not run very well. For the administrators, it's about the money, the contract, and job security for those employed by UMUC in Europe. For the students in this kind of program, it's not about critical thinking skills, debate, or higher education., rather UMUC Europe encourages eaning enough credits to be able to show up and collect at the graduation ceremony.
Get rid of the elderly administrators and faculty, bring in some professionals (if they can be found for what UMUC pays), and the program might get whipped into shape.
Sorry their feelings were hurt. Welcome to the unsubsidized-at-taxpayer-expense, real world outside the Army and Air Force. It's a world of complicated issues. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
