Professors object to President Bush's imminent arrival

A group of Furman professors is using President George W. Bush's planned commencement speech as an opportunity to voice its disapproval of the Bush administration and spark discussion with students. More than 115 faculty members, joining an informal campaign titled "(W)e Object," have signed a letter citing specific moral concerns over the Bush administration's handling of domestic and foreign policy. The letter and its cosigners will be posted on Furman's external site over the coming weeks and will remain up until commencement.

The letter lists several specific grievances against the Bush administration, including the falsification of a link between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks, the erosion of individual liberties, a denial of the global warming consensus and reckless government spending. The posting of the letter on the website was approved by Furman president David Shi and provost Tom Kazee.

According to Robin Visel of the English department, the letter arose out of e-mail discussion amongst the faculty. Many professors said they felt they could not attend graduation without publicly acknowledging their deep moral objections to the Bush presidency. Though Furman professors are contractually obliged to attend commencement, some have requested "conscientious objector" status allowing them to skip the ceremony, said Visel.

In addition to signing the letter, Furman professors plan to hold several panel discussions regarding the Bush administration's handling of topics such as torture, education policy, and environmental issues. The professors hope these discussions will spark dialogue regarding the Bush presidency, allowing both criticism and praise.

One such CLP discussion, featuring professors Dan Aiesi, David Gandolfo and Jim Guth, was scheduled for Thursday, May 1. The topic of the discussion was the morality of the Iraq war.
Faculty members were surprised by the vehement student reaction to their opposition, said Carmela Epright of the philosophy department.

"They acted as though we were just being trivial," said Epright. In response to student concerns over a disrupted ceremony, she said that commencement has already been disrupted by the president's planned visit, an inherently political act. She added that this is a deep moral issue for her and many other faculty members.

Some faculty members have not ruled out the staging of organized protest. However, the possibility of protest at or near the event may be limited by security details, which have yet to be determined, according to Public Safety.

"Visible protest is a form of dialogue," said Epright, defending the rights of faculty, students or community members to voice their disapproval. "It's not just being obnoxious."

Senior Angel Cruz and junior David White have led the effort to add student co-signers to the letter. At the time of printing, there were about 100 student signatures collected.

"The letter is not directly protesting his coming but more letting it be known that we strongly disagree with his policies," said Cruz.

Campus organization Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow (CSBT) is one group planning a formal response to the faculty's letter. According to Christopher Mills, CEO of CSBT, the faculty is within in its rights to sign the letter. However, the group disagrees with the faculty's actions and motives and plans to issue its own statement before commencement.

"That some professors who claim to be champions of 'tolerance' and 'open-mindedness' cannot respect their own students' achievements enough to fulfill their contractual obligations and sit through graduation is shameful," said Mills.

More information about the "(W)e Object" campaign, along with a list of the cosigners, can be found at http://weobject2008.blogspot.com/.