OK. Why do you think those two quotes are taken out of context?
It is possible that we may be using different meanings of the term “out of context”. As I understand it, it refers to selectively quoting parts of a larger essay or speech (or leaving out crucial background details) to give a different impression as to the meaning of the** quoted text itself**. It does not refer to quoting a sentence and actually capturing its meaning but leaving out other mitigating statements. So that if Professor X has suggested that America may have indirectly caused the bombing by its own actions, it is not to be considered taking him out of context if this is pointed out, even if one leaves out the fact that he also has a flag on his door etc.
As to whether it is a proper technique, I would say it depends if something other than the truth is being implied. The linked article says that the report “names names and criticizes professors for making statements ''short on patriotism and long on self-flagellation”. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
I didn’t see any evidence that anything was being taken out of context beyond the assertions of the quoted professors that this was so.
You appear to be responding to a point that has not been made. My comments were about the issue of “naming names” in the context of the suggestion by yourself and others that this was “to create lists of people to be hated” and was reminiscent of McCarthyism etc. To which I pointed out that this does not appear to be the emphasis of the report (as far as I can tell), and that the list appears to have been compiled for a commendable purpose.
Your response addresses a completely different issue - is the list actually good evidence? To which you use an analogy of using two people to portray “all of Religous America” as “generally” a factory for hate mongering". However, in this instance, the report cites “117 comments or incidents” as opposed to two people, and does not use the term “all” or anything approaching it, so your analogy does not hold. (BTW, why put “generally” in quotes? It does not appear in the article).
I don’t see the article attempting to smear anyone, or even academia in general, to the extent that you do. Merely to portray academia as the weak link in that it is more prone to the type of blame America analysis than the public at large. I think this is most likely true. What do you think?
Weak link? To what? Are you buying into the notion that anyone who critically analyzes a situation and recognizes that events have multiple origins is somehow “weakening” the U.S.?
Because when I read the originals, I could find nothing to justify an attack on the authors based on the idea of the U.S. “deserving” to suffer. Wesleyan President Bennet’s Letter “fails” only in not crying out for blood. It does not say anything about the U.S. deserving to be attacked or anything remotely like (indirectly) causing its own harm.
Exactly, and there is no “lack of patriotism” or “self-flagellation” in Bennet’s letter (unless one thinks that a very general statement that our world includes injustice is somehow an attack on patriotism or that that is supposed to be “self-flagellation”). Their use of his letter is a lie.
I was establishing my general perspective on the issue, rather than getting into a point by point discussion of each claim and counter-claim. I was not attempting to rebut your statements so much as to lay out my general thesis.
Thanks for the link. I agree with you that Bennet’s letter is taken out of context. However, I don’t see any reason to assume that this was deliberate; rather, the letter was confusing, and did not make a clear point. Significantly, the Boston Globe article also interpreted it the same way as the report.
The condemnation of the attacks was two sentences. The rest of the letter was about injustices in our society and the world. If his point was that these injustices were what caused the bombings (as both the report and the article assumed) then the report is justified in saying that Bennet had blamed America, by putting the emphasis on what Americans had done to cause the bombings.
However, I don’t see him doing that at all. As I see it, he was merely trying to find some meaning in the tragedy for the Wesleyans. And to this end he suggested that they look at what can come of senseless hatred and try to purge themselves of this. And to avoid getting caught up in a cycle of hatred and prejudice. An admirable message, though confusingly put.
So you’re right that they missed the boat in this particular instance. But I don’t think you can extrapolate anything more from it.
Buy into it? No, in fact I buy into it myself. But someone who focuses on it, yes.
I think the professors in the story and some in this thread are really blowing this out of proportion. No one’s being fired, no one’s being blacklisted. One group is using shrill, misquoted invective to insult the position of another, and the attacked group is using Chicken Little-like hand-waving to draw attention to its cause.
Yawn. Another day in America, where no one can seem to talk to another person in a reasonable manner.
But as far as those questioning whether misquoting took place, at least one person in the article claims it did:
tomndebb Don’t worry about the shrill comment…it was…I was…I was mad…I’ve pretty much been storing up all the anger/irritation/confusion/sadness I’ve been experiencing lately concerning the
(you said it well) that’s been taking place since the 11th. It scares me to see my friends turning against one another just because some of them believe that America was partly responsible for the actions of the terrorists/pointing out that America is no angel/saying that war is not the right answer.
Reading about Lynne Cheney set me off and all of my anger became focused on her. I couldn’t wrap my mind around the idea of a public figure attacking professors for educating people…although when I really stopped to think about it I realized I was angry because this happens all the time…the events of the 11th have just magnified it.
I’ve had time to calm down, time to think and time to read over the posts here. Thank you to those who were able to discuss this in a more intelligent manner then myself.