Last April, the American Sniper controversy that swept through the University of Michigan’s campus seemed to have no boundaries on how many people it could upset. There were issues with the original screening because of its setting. There was outrage when the university cancelled the showing of the movie because of the original outrage. This outrage caused the University to reverse its decision to cancel the screening, which caused another uproar and the whole ordeal left a bad taste in the mouth of everyone who was paying attention to Ann Arbor last Spring. Some groups were even upset about the head football coach, Jim Harbaugh, who met with Muslim students to discuss their concerns about the movie, because he reportedly apologized for a tweet he sent out amid the controversy. All in all many people were upset about many things.
An overwhelming theme of the outrage was that specific groups felt that they were not being heard or that other specific groups were being listened to more intently than their own group. It was an extremely divisive set of decisions by the University and students did what they had to to make themselves heard. Petitions were signed, by both sides, open letters were penned, and social media was abuzz. Despite all this noise the university continuously refused to listen and took away the students’ chances to be involved in a process that could’ve been beneficial to creating a truly democratic environment. If the University had listened to the voices of the students the solution to this ongoing problem, which caused the University of Michigan to come across in a not-so-good light, would have been obvious.
I talked to representatives from two student organizations, who had polar opposite views on just about every aspect of the issue at hand, and there was one thing that they came to somewhat of an agreement on. I asked Devin Jones from S.A.F.E. at University of Michigan about the ideal outcome of his group’s protest regarding the screening of the movie at Umix and he said “the movie would not have been shown at Umix if they were able to switch the showing of the movie to the next week and have a sort of panel discussion to talk about the movie.” At no point did he discuss an outright cancellation of the movie as his group’s objective. After this interview I brought Jones’s suggestion of a panel discussion to Grant Strobl from Young Americans for Freedom at the University of Michigan and he said that although his group didn’t feel a panel discussion was necessary His group “would’ve been fine with that. There’s nothing wrong with it. That the whole point of a University is dialogue and discussion on tough issues.” If the University would’ve listened to these groups and allowed a panel discussion on the film, both sides would’ve gladly participated and true discourse would have occurred.
I doubt this discourse would’ve resulted in a glorious democratic epiphany for all students involved and lead them to a perfectly shared view on the movie American Sniper, and its protagonist, Chris Kyle, but it could’ve certainly exposed students to views of other students that they had not considered. This decision would’ve also constituted a legitimate display of power from the university in the terms of Jurgen Habermas. Habermas says “A public sphere that functions politically requires more than institutional guarantees of the constitutional state it also needs the supportive spirit of culture, traditions, and patterns of socialization of the political culture, of a populace accustomed to freedom” This decision, to allow a panel discussion, would’ve demonstrated the students ability to function politically through the public sphere and demonstrate the University’s commitment to fostering democracy within its campus.
I'm glad to see that I was able to see the last bit of this series from the start to finish. Truly, a discussion would've resolved and prevented any issues stemming from the so-called controversial movie. Towards the end of this series it seems like the whole Islamophobia and Hatred was never really the main issue. When you boil it down to this discussion as the would-have-been solution, the whole sides thing seems rather tedious. If anything I feel like both "sides" were simply disgruntled that the University wouldn't hear them rather than protesting on the basis of freedom of expression and countering racism. Though I do agree wholeheartedly that a discussion would have been the best solution here to let the sides have a fair chance to duke it out for the right decision -I can also understand why the University didn't choose to listen in the first place. First of all, it's too controversial to make a decision on so the University essentially chickened out -creating a void of discussion that led to more disgruntled students. But on the second incident, the University would have likely realized that these sides of the "debate" are simply vying for time to speak their minds and wouldn't come to an agreement, as you mentioned, on anything related to the issue -you can't uphold American freedoms of expression and patriotism without sounding racist and vice versa. This is really just food for thought but maybe the University just wanted to drop this like a hot sack of potatoes and hope it dies down on its own, which essentially did happen -except that we can still find the ashes here and there. All in all, I commend this series for jabbing at the University's initial cowardice to act, perhaps if the University acts quicker next time in a competent way, we wouldn't run into this kind of problem
ReplyDeleteMitchell,
ReplyDeleteI found your take on the "American Sniper Controversy" here at Michigan to be interesting. As I think you're aware, another one of our classmates - Gavin - has been writing about this situation, what it potentially entails, and how it can be interpreted as well! I found that your approach was intriguingly different and I enjoyed reading your series!
The way you chose to focus on the events that precipitated in chronological order, immediately after the film was announced, the subsequent fall out, and the different choices that the University or University representatives made was definitely helpful in getting a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the issue in its entirety. The context you provided was a great feature of your series and really built/created a nice timeline of the events for me to follow!
What I also found interesting was that despite you and Gavin having distinctively different approaches to the situation and the subsequent issues that arose, you both turned to Habermas' ideal of the public sphere as a solution. I wonder if this might speak to something that is lacking in our campus climate that you two have both honed in on. Does the student body feel that they lack political efficacy or at the very least lack a venue in which they can voice their concerns and deliberate issues?