Mr. Richard Yanikoski, President
Saint Xavier University

Dear Mr. Yanikoski:

Sunday's Chicago Tribune ran an Associated Press story that briefly described the recent travails of one of your University's more respected professors--Peter N. Kirstein ("St. Xavier apologizes over e-mail; Professor called Air Force cadet 'disgrace' to U.S.," Nov. 10).

I need not recite the facts of the Kirstein affair, facts with which you and Prof. Kirstein are much more familiar than I am anyway.

To be sure, one troubling aspect of this affair is the fact that Prof. Kirstein's original email message represented PRIVATE correspondence between he himself and Cadet Kurpiel, and only became public (or received "unwarranted national distribution," in the Professor's words--i.e., became widely disseminated through the Internet) by the willful act of Cadet Kurpiel et al.

No. Clearly more troubling aspects of this affair are my concern. Specifically, the defense of the academic freedom of Prof. Kirstein; and some acknowledgement of the long and sordid history of American foreign policy, its present turn in favor of an aggressive war against Iraq, and situating the entire Kirstein affair within this context.

It should go without saying that in sending his original email message to Cadet Kurpiel, Prof. Kirstein did nothing wrong. One may debate the Professor's TONE; but that is it. Therefore, under no circumstances should Saint Xavier University adopt punitive measures against Prof. Kirstein. To do so would be a clear violation of the Professor's academic freedom. And wrong. For as Milton once wrote in his attempt to deliver Britain's popular press "from the restraints with which it was encumbered" in 1643: "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." But the fact that the present email communication is destined to receive an automated response from your office, due to the volume of messages you've received "from military men and women around the world," suggests, rather, a reactive circling-of-the-wagons mentality, not an unabashed defense of Prof. Kirstein's academic freedom. And that is hardly encouraging.

The other matter is beyond debate, however. Under constantly changing pretexts (e.g., the "war on terrorism," the dismantling of "weapons of mass destruction," the "liberation" of the people of Iraq, the "preemptive" defense of the American people against an imaginary attack), the United States is presently preparing to wage an aggressive war against Iraq, a sovereign state and fellow member of the United Nations. Everyday, the newspapers report leaked information from inside the Bush Administration that openly underscores this fact. Thus, the November 10 New York Times reported that "President Bush has settled on a war plan for Iraq....The plan, approved in recent weeks by Mr. Bush well before the Security Council's unanimous vote on Friday to disarm Iraq, calls for massing 200,000 to 250,000 troops for attack by air, land and sea" ("War Plan for Iraq Calls for Big Force and Quick Strikes"). America's "armed forces have been preparing to fight Iraq again since the Gulf War ended 11 years ago," the Los Angeles Times reported the same day. "The Pentagon has been moving ships, fighter jets, bombers and artillery into the Persian Gulf region in preparation for a possible war with Iraq, bolstering an already hefty force in the region....So much firepower is arrayed within hours of Iraq's borders that the U.S. could launch a small strike force backed by air power into the nation within weeks of being told to do so by the White House" ("War Preparations Escalate in the Gulf").

Aggressive war--i.e., extraterritorial and by one sovereign state against another, or the kind the United Nations was founded to "save succeeding generations from"--constitutes the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole,” according to the judgment at Nuremberg. The U.N. Security Council's November 8 vote to pass Resolution 1441 did not close down the road to war--rather, it has opened it. With this vote, the "big powers have given a blank check to a superpower to do what it wants with this world," an Algerian commentary warned Sunday. "This is the start of the road to the law of the jungle" ("The law of the jungle," El Watan, Nov. 10).

It is within this real-world context that the Kirstein affair can only be understood.

Now, notice Air Force Captain Jim Borders' letter to Prof. Kirstein, Quoting Marine Corps Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, whose thoughts Captain Borders finds "best encapsulates the opinion of the cadet wing":

"It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."

To say that these are militaristic sentiments, as well as false, is an understatement. Moreover, they are DANGEROUS sentiments. It is the holding of sentiments such as these that enables Washington to continue its military buildup around Iraq and threaten that country with war. No intellectual dedicated to "peace, freedom, multiculturalism," and to challenging "American universalism" (to quote from Prof. Kirstein's teaching philosophy at http://www.sxu.edu/history/pkirstein/) could let sentiments such as these pass uncriticized, whoever expresses them and wherever they appear. That, I presume, was the motive behind Prof. Kirstein's original comments to Cadet Kurpiel. There is absolutely no reason for Prof. Kirstein to apologize for offending anyone who holds these views, whether they are members of the U.S. military or not.

I fully support Prof. Kirstein's right to express his views without fear of reprisal from either the U.S. military establishment or his University.

Sincerely Yours,
David Peterson