Donald Rumsfeld
Christie HefnerYonke says that these alumni are a "testament to the quality and character of New Trier's graduates." But it makes you wonder if that's why they were really chosen. Look at Donald Rumsfeld. He is in no way a favorite in the country because of his involvement in the Iraqi invasion.
Another New Trier alum Chad Topaz ('92) wrote a letter to New Trier in which he stated that "Despite the glossy list of philanthropic activities in Rumsfeld's award citation, his career has done anything but serve community and humanity, and he has demonstrated a compassionless heart. His activities as an architect of torture of detainees in the United States' unjust Iraq war are anti-humanitarian, are despised around the globe, and have contributed to the degradation of our country's international standing."
So should an "architect of torture" be awarded? When I look at the name of inductees, I see a Nobel Prize winning physicist, a cancer researcher, a Holocaust survivor. But I wonder in the inclusion of Rumsfeld was just because he was a prominent figure in this decade, not because he truly committed his mind to inquiry, heart to compassion and life to the service of humanity. Is celebrity valued more than good work done by ordinary people?
Sadly, I believe it does in this society and at New Trier. The school wants to be associated with a power and status of a man like Rumsfeld. We taught him, didn't we? Once a Trev, always a Trev, right?
But I think there's some people who aren't necesarily U.S. Secretaries of Defense or star in the Office, but need to recognized for what they've accomplished in their lives as well. As a society, we focus too much on the "star" or the glitz and the glamor. Because there's ordinary people who are working hard every day to make this world a better place and we constantly overlook them.
Jackie--
ReplyDeleteWhat a great post with strong supporting evidence! Sadly, I agree, that our society seems to value celebrities more than ordinary people who have done great work. The glitz and glamor that come with such high power and status seem to interest more people than others who may not have that fame or money, but have made a greater impact on the world on a moral scale. Regardless of whether you are a republican or democrat, the issue regarding Rumsfeld is whether New Trier should honor someone who is seen by so many people in this country to be a reprehensible person?
I agree with Brooks- this is a very strongly supported post, and a very interesting one! I think that society as a whole admires fame and power, liks you said. New Trier, being part of society, does the same. I do not think that a Hall of Fame is productive- yes, it is nice to honor those who contribute to our community, but who decides who those inductees are? What constitutes dedication of a mind to inquiry? I think that due to the subjectivity of the matter and the sensitivity of establishing an elite, New Trier is better off sticking to reunions :). Maybe an accomplished alum can make a speech at their reunion; that way, people can be acknowledged inclusively rather than exclusively.
ReplyDelete