Graduate student Brian Bogart is spending a lot of time outside Johnson Hall lately – about five hours a day. He’s protesting the government’s military priorities and military funding of
University research.
Bogart, who created his own interdisciplinary peace studies graduate program, has repeatedly announced that he “will refuse to study inside the classroom of any school that sells itself to war.”
He has kept his word. Bogart has yet to attend Political Science 540, his only class this term.
And he’s getting credit for it.
The Emerald commends Bogart for voicing his opinion and demonstrating his strong feelings against military research. Yet it’s ludicrous that Bogart receives academic credit for protesting the University he attends.
Instead of earning 35 percent of his Causes and Prevention of War grade through in-class participation, Bogart has arranged with his instructor, assistant professor Jane Cramer, to write a longer research paper. Bogart and Cramer argue that Bogart has more knowledge about the subject than his classmates and thus shouldn’t have to complete assigned readings or attend class.
Using this reasoning, many students who have completed internships or have other “real world” experience in their fields of study should be excused from classes.
Further, protesting is a political act, one that often involves personal sacrifice. Although Bogart is clearly well-intentioned, it seems slightly hypocritical that he pays tuition to protest.
Granted, he is trying to change the University’s fundamental priorities. But doesn’t giving money to the University ultimately make him another cog in system he believes has misplaced priorities?
We can’t blame Bogart for protesting for credit; no student in his or her right mind would pass up an opportunity to earn four credits for sitting outside for hours each day. The real problem is that Cramer allows his protest.
We strongly support academic freedom and giving students leeway to pursue their interests. Yet in the interest of fairness, work done for academic credit should meet certain standards applicable to all students.
Even murkier than the logic behind awarding Bogart grades for striking is the status of military funding on campus. Clearly, programs such as ONAMI and the Brain, Biology and Machine Initiative receive funding from agencies with ties to the military.
Bogart’s assertion that government, and by extension the University, must turn its focus away from the military is a lofty ideal. Realistically, a distinction must be drawn between military research and weapons research.
Research funded by military agencies has led to scientific breakthroughs with peaceful applications. Yet there is always a possibility that innovations can be used as weapons.
University officials claim no weapons research is being conducted here, and we sincerely hope this is true. We must also urge administrators to be fully candid about all military-related research that’s underway.
Students deserve to know what their school is up to. And if they deem it necessary to strike against the University, it shouldn’t reward them with credit for that protest.