Condi at The U Means Freedom for the Very Few

Once again, the University of Minnesota is in the spotlight -- and once again, it doesn’t look good for the intelligentsia-in-charge.

And once again, this writer must try to figure out why so many smart administrators keep making so many stupid decisions.

Bad enough that law-abiding students -- along with other young people under thirty -- who were in Dinkytown, in the wrong place at the wrong time, would get automatically arrested after the big hockey game. But now, even law-abiding students attending the U who dared oppose gifting Condoleezza Rice $150,000 for her mini-propaganda tour were actually barred from hearing her “lecture” AND DENOUNCED BY THE ADMINISTRATION AS UNDEMOCRATIC RIFF-RAFF?

Whoa.

Are those the muffled cries of liberty waning in the distance...or did my s**t detector just blow another fuse?

I’m simply amazed at the way university administrators in our “democracy” continue to shamelessly eliminate more and more freedoms for students, parents, taxpayers, and law-abiding citizens alike.

I’m even more concerned, though, about the lackadaisical way local reporters in both print and broadcast media have covered these liberty lock outs. They’ve either downplayed this Condi story or blatantly ignored important aspects of it. Either way, they’ve helped distort the truth, not report the news.

Come on Esme, whatever happened to your investigative reporting? Where were your probing questions? Hey, Eric, remember when you used to be everyone’s favorite attack dog on current issues and cover-ups? Now you guys are more concerned with holding onto your jobs and covering Peeps conventions than you are with legwork. Whatever happened to good, old-fashioned news reporting?

Whatever happened to reporting the news in a truthful, UNBIASED manner?

As both American citizen and Minnesota resident, I’m alarmed and appalled at the local media’s coverage of this event. No investigating. No researching. No balancing of these opposing perceptions. Local reporters mindlessly yet eagerly went along with whatever yarns the university administration were weaving and passing out to them.

Hmmm, you don’t see it that way? Well, let’s go over some basics here so you won’t stay so confused.

A few weeks ago, the U announced that Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State during the Bush Administration and 9/11 and the Iraq War, and now professor at Stanford University, was invited to speak at the University of Minnesota.

Her appearance was supposedly part of The Distinguished Carlson Lecture Series -- a program sponsored by the Humphrey School of Public Affairs. But given her role and acquiescence on violating The Geneva Convention during America’s tumultuous times after 9/11, it was inevitable that she would, of course, continue to defend her past positions and actions. So, somehow, that talk about Civil Rights would drift over to Republican righteousness about keeping America safe. It always does.

Needless to say, Professor Rice is an exceptionally bright, multi-talented woman. And no one can spew that propaganda as deftly and as charmingly as she can. I didn’t even have to read that newspaper headline taken from her own proclamation -- ‘We kept the Nation Safe’ --  because I already knew it was coming. I knew she would pepper her talk with that defensive yet jubilant remark because she’s done it before. So have all the other good little Republicans from Dubya’s Administration.

They all keep crowing about what a great job they did to keep America free and safe back then, even though 9/11 happened on their watch.

And that’s why so many students, teachers, taxpayers, alumni, alumnae, even other rogue U officials were up in arms. They didn’t want to hear the inevitable PR covering up the lies again -- especially when the spin was coming from the cause of the problem, especially when the spinmaster was being paid 150K for her spin.

Enough, already!

If you analyze this criticism further, though, you’ll see that there were two distinct and separate criticisms about the Condi appearance that inevitably overlapped. Her unreasonably high speaking fee and the underlying reason for her appearance could be viewed separately. Sometimes they were. Sometimes even the media scored points for acknowledging both criticisms.

But the reporting fell flat when it came time to investigate and present the connections between Condi’s high price and her actual message.

Let’s review. Look at her exorbitant honorarium: $150,000. Wow. Too much. Way too much. In this time of economic hardship for so many students, it seems financially irresponsible for the university to give so much money to someone who’s speaking so little to such a small, elite group of students and faculty -- and, oh, to such die-hard Republicans.

Then, look at the overt amnesia about her role in the 9/11 debacle.

Ms. Rice blatantly ignored all intel that forewarned her and the administration of an eminent attack on U.S. soil. She went along with “wartime” torture and abuse. But she refused to acknowledge the glaring downside of her own actions.

Now whenever she makes an appearance, she always positively reframes her time as Secretary of State. Like too many Republicans, she keeps patting herself on the back with the Heckuva Job Brownie Technique. Yeah, if you keep talking about what a great job you’ve done, people will start to believe your repetitions. (It’s true: if you keep repeating a lie long enough, people will actually start to believe it.)

So there was enough criticism about her appearance to go around. Sometimes critics would object to her receiving 150K, period. Sometimes critics would object to the ulterior motive for her “lecture” -- that is, her mission to keep spreading Republican good news PR and propaganda. But inevitably, both criticisms merged into on big protest:
Why should a former Secretary of State who exhibited such incompetence and who helped create such international SNAFUS during her time in office be rewarded with a whopping $150K for giving a little speech?

Now, there was a reasonable question that was never acknowledged or pursued by local reporters.

Guess it’s easier to go along with the university’s version of events than it is to actually do your job.

As soon as Condi’s critics suggested rescinding her invitation, however, the U intelligentsia sprang into action. Their rallying cry? You rabble-rousers don’t want any freedom of speech for anyone but yourselves.

Game on, bitches.

Why, we can’t Un-invite Condoleezza to the university after we’ve already invited her. It simply isn’t done! Besides, we have freedom of speech here. We can’t stop someone from speaking just because we don’t like her message or because we don’t agree with her!

Suddenly, the administration was embroiled in a noble struggle to protect freedom of speech on campus. Suddenly, the dissenters who opposed Professor Rice’s appearance were vilified as anarchists who were threatening freedom of speech. And no one even bothered to notice how absurd the establishment’s reaction and subsequent logic really were.

After all, the administration had just announced that Professor Rice had been specifically engaged to speak about the 1964 Civil Rights Act to commemorate the 50th anniversary of its enactment. What’s not to like about that? This isn’t the Supreme Court. If she really had been engaged to simply speak about the Civil Rights Act, there wouldn’t have been any trouble or controversy. She would have given a brief speech on the subject that would have been open to the public, so she wouldn’t have gotten paid such a steep honorarium. End of story.

That didn’t happen, though.

That didn’t happen because Rice was paid to be the headliner at an exclusive little country club-like coterie at the university that was pro-business, pro-Republican. That’s what her appearance was really about. Anyone who disagreed with the decision to engage Rice as well-paid speaker was automatically blocked from hearing her speak.

Anyone who voiced opposition in any way was prohibited from attending the lecture, dinner, reception, and meeting with students. No one even stopped to realize that the university’s fascist treatment of these dissenters was fueling -- even creating -- these active demonstrations. No one at any of the local networks or dailies bothered to ask the obvious question, either. No one actually asked the University President, “How can you allow your mistreatment of dissension to continue and flourish at a land-grant university?”

(Too bad, Esme, we were really counting on you.)

Not one professional journalist even brought up the inherent absurdity of this situation. Not one.

So let me explain what I’m talking about. You see, the University of Minnesota is a land-grant university. It’s not a private, liberal arts college like Macalaster, Concordia, Augsburg, Carlton, or St. Olaf. The U of M is an educational institution designated by Congress ( and the state legislature) to receive benefits of the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. It was initially created to teach a variety of subjects -- agriculture, military tactics, mechanic arts, even classical studies -- so that a practical, liberal education would be within reach of the working classes. So that education would be available to all, and not just to a privileged few. EDUCATION FOR ALL?

That’s right. The U of M was a progressive, liberal educational institution long before FOX News stigmatized the words “progressive” and “liberal.”

After you finish reading this blog, Google What is a land-grant college? for more details.

Meanwhile, read Washington State University Extension’s uplifting statement of purpose from its website:

Today America’s land-grant universities continue to fulfill their democratic mandate for openness, accessibility, and service to people, and many of these institutions have joined the ranks of the nation’s most distinguished public research universities. Through the land-grant university heritage, millions of students are able to study every academic discipline and explore fields of inquiry far beyond the scope envisioned in the original land-grant mission.

How honorable. How idealistic. Too bad the Humphrey School of Public Affairs and the sycophants connected with the Carlson School forgot that part about the “democratic mandate for openness, accessibility, and service to people...” For years, a handful of professional elitists has been trying to turn the U of M into an exclusive Ivy League college like Harvard or Yale.

For the past 30 years, they’ve been pretty secretive about their own un-democratic ideal. Now with more money and media support, they’re becoming downright brazen in their actions. Bringing Professor Rice here to speak was more of a nod to their own socio-economic aspirations, not an educational opportunity for the majority. That’s a shame because the U of M is still a land-grant university, not a selective school for some privileged minority.

Read the memo, people. Having a land-grant university in this state means state taxpayers and state legislators have a real say about what goes on at the U of M. You don’t even have to be a student or an alumna or alumnus or even a high school graduate. You only need to be a taxpayer to register your opinion about any going-ons at this school.

Furthermore, university officials have absolutely no right to exclude any citizen or taxpayer or student or teacher from hearing any speaker who comes to the U to deliver a talk like the one Rice delivered.

The smart thing for the intelligentsia to do would have been to make Professor Rice’s speech open to the public. She could have delivered her remarks to a large audience comprised of people of all ages, incomes, demographic backgrounds. Then she could have taken their questions in some kind of moderated panel discussion. Later on, she still would have had the opportunity to speak and bask in the glow of the admiring, well-heeled, elite group that wanted to give her dinner and reception.

If Professor Rice had been given an option to back out of this engagement, she could have done so gracefully -- without leaving U officials with egg on their faces. She wouldn’t have had to be UNinvited because she could have canceled her appearance herself. But that would have made too much sense.

As usual, there’s the sensible, intelligent way of doing things...and then, there’s the U of M Way.