I thihink Heinbecker raised some serious issues. If you are in a global
environment how and when to use force in international relations is a
serious issue. I also think we need to discuss these issues.

James A. Bryant

>>> [log in to unmask] 9/3/2004 11:47:55 AM >>>
While I was somewhat put off by Heinbecker's tongue lashing, I chose
to
stay and pose a question at the end.

As a scientist, I am trained to look for plausible alternative
hypotheses.
 In law school, I learned to acknowledge that there might be valid
oppositional arguments, and even to be able to argue the other side.

My question to Amb. Heinbecker invited him to at least identify
plausible
arguments from the other side, even if he found them unpersuasive.

I found his response wholly unsatisfying.  Essentially, he was right
and
anyone else who thought otherwise was clearly unenlightened.  Funny
...
that seemed to be his description of America (or at least the "bad
son").

Posing the same question to my Canadian cousins over the weekend, I
found
that they were able to see the plausibility of either side in the
debate,
irrespective of what position they personally maintained.

Perhaps because they too are academics and scientists, and not
politicians, they were honestly intererested in inquiry rather than
advancing an agenda.

I did not mind, however, Heinbecker's correction of the misperception
that
the 9/11 hijackers had come across the border from Canada, as I had
held
that misconception myself.

--
Dr. Gavin Clarkson
Assistant Professor
University of Michigan
     School of Information
     School of Law
     Native American Studies
303C West Hall
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1092
734-763-2284
[log in to unmask]
http://www.si.umich.edu/~gsmc

> 3.   I was perhaps hyper-sensitive about not wanting to upset the
> audience. I viewed you as my guests in my country. I believe whole
> heartedly in free speech and academic freedom.  I do not, however,
> typically (or intentionally) wish to be  discourteous.
>
> 4.   Undoubtedly because of 3., I was particularly aware of people's
> reactions to the speech. Overwhelmingly, I was assured that whether
or
> not they agreed with what was said (and I have no doubt there were
both
> Canadians and Americans present who did not agree with all that was
> said), the content was entirely appropriate, and if a speech such as
> this cannot be given to an academic community, we should seriously
> consider our commitment to the free exchange of ideas.
>
> As someone from outside of the US, talking to many of you at the
meeting
> reinforced what I had been reading in the press about just how
polarised
> the electorate is this year. I would remind all of you, however,
that,
> while the US policies are taking a good deal of heat these days
outside
> of the country, there are so many things about America that stand as
> something of a beacon to the rest of us. One in particular, is your
> unfaltering defence of free speech.
>
> Sally