Dear Editor,
American University prides itself on being "a private institution with a public responsibility." I fully support this sentiment, as well as the President's Project Team on AU as a Premier Global University assessment that AU has a unique opportunity to emerge as a leader in internationalized education.
However, AU is severely neglecting this responsibility and damaging its potential to stand out in the field of ethical international affairs by supporting the United States' occupation of Iraq. AU's acceptance of a US Agency for International Development grant - through SIS' Center for Global Peace - to support the US Coalition Provisional Authority's (CPA) unilateral redevelopment of the recently-gutted Iraqi school system is tantamount to an endorsement of the occupation and the Bush administration's doctrine of "preventive war."
By operating under the auspices of the Bush occupation, AU is effectively saying that although most of its highly regarded academics may disagree with a policy of aggression eschewing consultation of allies and the United Nations - and that will certainly lead to less international security and cooperation - "if you bomb it, we will rebuild it." Thus, not only are we complicit, we become accomplices to the destabilization of the international system, and only encourage the future implementation of this policy.
Certainly, as a highly privileged white, American college student, I applaud the intentions of Abdul Aziz Said of the Center for Global Peace and others who want to share their gifts with Iraqi students and begin to repair the damage done by brutal regimes - let this critique not be interpreted as an attack on AU's storied role in assisting with education abroad, as with SIS's partnership with the University for Peace in Costa Rica.
AU should pursue a role in Iraq reconstruction, but only as an associate of CPA-independent NGO's or an Iraqi-coordinated reconstruction. I urge all members of the university community to educate themselves on the dynamics of this issue, and to pay close attention to the warnings of AU academics who have spoken out, such as SIS Assistant Professor Caleb Rossiter, who published an open letter on this issue in July (full text at calebrossiter.com).
It is time to heed the warning first posed in this letter, and echoed again at last week's Table Talk forum, and reexamine our role as a responsible, global-minded university.
Andrew Willis Junior School of International Service
Dear Editor,
Mike Leavitt's nomination to be the EPA administrator is another Bush Administration sortie in the war on the environment. This administration bombed the Clean Air Act by easing several regulations and allowing aging power plants to upgrade without installing anti-pollution controls. The administration concealed its sneak attack on protections for untouched national forests in the guise of preventing forest fires. The administration used false assurances about air quality near ground zero as part of its propaganda to get Wall Street open again. Now, the administration hails Leavitt as a balancer between environmental and commercial interests.
The reality is no matter who is the administrator the un-elected nor legislatively confirmed White House advisors like Karl Rove really make policy. Leavitt will be the latest puppet at the EPA. As for balancing interests, Leavitt's tenure in Utah resulted in the state's environmental ratings falling in almost all areas. He opened up preserved forests to mining and logging. Power plant pollution rose while declining in most other states. The state tied for last in enforcing the Clean Water Act. He did work with several other states, Native American and environmental groups and commercial interests to address the pollution impacting the Grand Canyon, but if this is supposed to be a balanced record then someone has their finger on the scale.
Just because Leavitt made up the word enlibria (to bring to balance) to describe his involvement in environmental decisions does not mean that balance exists.The real issue is not Leavitt, but the Bush Administration's onslaught on the environment. Leavitt's confirmation must be a thorough examination of the Bush environmental record.
Our senators must do the right thing and bring these atrocities to the attention of the American public.
Scott Hart Graduate Student
Dear Editor,
When I think of the function of the Environmental Protection Agency, I envision an organization that steadfastly strives to conserve our nation's last wild spaces. The agency must work to enact policy changes that protect the rights of citizens to have a clean and healthy environment. It must strive to make America a global leader in the environmental field.
Sadly, during the current administration's reign, this ideal EPA has been far from realized. Environmental policy has been continuously dictated by the White House agenda rather than by the EPA administrator. From the relaxations of the Clean Air Act to nebulous reassurances to New Yorkers about their air quality following 9/11, to refusing to eliminate dioxins despite an international treaty signed by the US in 2001, the EPA has been shaky on both domestic and international environmental policy throughout this administration.
The appointment of Utah governor Mike Leavitt to the position of EPA administrator can only worsen the credibility of the agency. While governor of Utah, Leavitt allowed millions of acres of the state to be opened to mining and logging. He frequently sided with industry over the environment, and allowed Utah's poor air quality to worsen alarmingly. Is this the man we can count on to turn around the anti-environmental policies of the EPA during this administration?
As a concerned citizen, it is clear to me that to have any hope of the EPA functioning true to its name and function, our first step must be to prevent Mike Leavitt from having authority over our nation's environmental policies.
Lisa Gilbert Graduate Student
