Universities n
By Professor Tom Collier
"Ain't gonna study war no more!" the
song goes, and for most American students
the "no more" is hardly necessary: they never
study war. Whether in high school or in
college, the standard history courses cover
the "causes and consequences" of wars, but
rarely the wars themselves. The humanities
*d social sciences in general study war even
less. And yet popular interest in war is high:
there is an outpouring of books - big,
expensive books-on wars. Millions have
watched films and videos on war, from the
PBS series on the American Civil War to the
shock-schlock of Rambo. But in spite of this
interest, the subject is largely ignored in
academia. Could this be amistake? Could
wars matter in ways that might warrant their
ious study at universities? Here are some
asons why they might well be studied.
First, war is a primal human experience,
deeply embedded in memory. In the first epic
poem in Western literature, Homer wrote of
war; in his view, "Men grow tired of sleep,
love, singing and dancing, sooner than of
war." From the Great War of 1914-18,
Frederick Manning wrote, "War is waged by
men; not beasts, or by gods. It is a particu-
Oly human activity." And in our own times,
nne Hanley writes that the literature of war
"is particularly potentin shaping our imagi-
nation, indeed our very memory, of war."
She goes on to ask, "What is it in our
literature of war, in our modern cultural

rust critically study war

memory of war, that has led us in this
century to make war again and again?" Is
that not an important question for
humanists to address?
Second, wars have many conse-
quences, and theparticular ways in which
they are fought vary those consequences.
Tens of millions have died in war since
1914, millions more were scarred and
maimed, billions of dollars worth of
property destroyed, and incalculable
damage wreaked on Earth herself.
Political consequences count too: did it
matter who won the Second World War?
Read "Fatherland" or "Mein Kampf' or
"The Man in the High Castle" if you
think it did not. And the ways in which
that war was fought: the Germans
massacred Jews and other innocents; the
Japanese raped and murdered in
Nanking; and in revenge the British and
American bombed and burned the great
cities of Germany and Japan. Are those
not important subjects for social scien-
tists to address?
Finally, there is the fact that wars are
not earthquakes nor tornadoes. They are
political acts, and a nation is responsible
for its wars. The more open, democratic
and responsive thatnation's political
system, the more individual citizens
themselves are responsible. In this
nation, more than any, we are each of us

responsible for our wars and the ways
in which we fight them. For that
reason alone, American universities,
more than any, should study and try to
understand war. B.H. Liddell Hart, a
distinguishedBritishmilitarycritic,
suggested sixty years ago that war was
"...a subject so serious as to be worth
the study of every thinking man and
woman... The study of war as a branch
of knowledge requires the method of
work that prevails in a University as
well as the attitude of mind that is
inculcated there."

How ridiculous is it that
President Clinton is almost 15 votes
short of passing a bill in the House
that would ban the sale and
manufacture of most assault
weapons? For those who doubt the
political power of the NRA and
their Southern and Western
politicos, this is clear proof that the
NRA and its allies hinder compre-
hensive gun control. What's more
important, an AK-47 for hunting or
saving a couple of thousand lives?

Wednesday, May 4, 1994 - The Michigan Daily - 5
A IFERNTFAU
Sexism pervades
A few weeks ago, when asked in a telephone interview for
his impressions of new MSA President Julie Neenan, Univer-
sity Regent Deane Baker responded that she seemed "very
competent and attractive."
Her physical appearance - attractive or otherwise - has
nothing to do with Neenan's competence as MSA president.
Surely Baker knows this. Or at least he knows that physical
appearance has nothing to do with the competency of men.
Given his history as a homophobe who actively opposes gay
rights, we can rest assured that Baker never commented on past
President Craig Greenberg's physical appearance.
Thus we must assume that Baker felt the need or desire to
comment on Neenan's looks because she is a woman. Perhaps
he was just being polite, chivalrously granting a compliment.
Or perhaps he genuinely finds Neenan attractive and was
merely sharing this opinion during the course of an interview.
Regardless, Baker belittled Neenan's leadership position, and
he belittled women in general.
Neenan, while stating that her appearance should have
nothing to do with her relationship to the regents and that
Baker's comment was out of place, said she's chosen to ignore
the whole thing. Given her political position right now, I can't
say I blame her- but that doesn't make Baker's words any less
irksome. I find it difficult to accept that a man who makes such
comments also makes rules that govern the University.
A week after this incident, the Senate voted to allow a top
admiral, who attended the Tailhook conference, and then did
little to help investigate sexual harassment and assault that
occurred there, retire with a four-star rank and generous pen-
sion. The vote was closer than anyone predicted (54-43), but the
man stilt won, and all harassed and attacked women still lost.
The seven women senators cast a bipartisan ballot against
the vote, and created a united front with eight women represen-
tatives who joined them on the floor to show support during the
debate. Too bad it wasnjust symbolic. Too bad that while every
woman with a vote felt the same way, and while Tailhook is a
word fraught with meaning for women who have experienced
sexual harassment, 54 men ignored their united voice.
The same day the Senate voted, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that jurors cannot be excluded based on their gender
alone. In ight of these recent reminders that different standards
and judgments are constantly being based on gender alone, I'm
not so sure this ruling was such a good idea.
I realize that constitutionally speaking everyone is equal
and has the same rights, but I also realize that in the eyes of
Deane Baker,Neenan as MSA president is not equaltoGreenberg
as MSA president - even if she does "seem competent." I also
realize that 54 elected male leaders disregarded what Tailhook
meant to women - one having the audacity to suggest that the
women senatorsdidn't fully understand the facts - and instead
voted to uphold a deal made years ago in one of the many
backrooms of the old boys' network.
So why should we expect better in the courtroom? Imagine
an entirejury of Deane Bakers. (It's not that bizarre -just think
back to Anita Hill.) Now picture a rape survivor telling these
men her story. It doesn't look quite as fair as constitutional
equality, does it?
I understand that jury pools are supposed to be representa-
tive of the community and thus women should always be
present, but I also understand that's no guarantee. What if the
first 12 people called are men, men who seem nice and say the
right things? The lawyer has no reason to dismiss them, except
for the desire to have some women up there judging the facts,
and that's no longer reason enough.
So we get a jury that perhaps notes the rape survivor's
competency, but also figures that she doesn't understand the
facts. And besides, she's really quite attractive, how could the
guy help himself, right?
I realize that gender isn't always the deciding factor, but the
odds always work against women when men have the power.
Saying that women and men should be treated equally does
not mean that they are. That's why I have concern with this
egalitarian decision the Supreme Court just handed down. I
appreciate the ideals it supports, yet I can't help wonder what
the repercussions will be.

VIEWPOINT
t'he real Dick Nixon was a crook

By Flint J. Wainess
The Nixonian Way: surreptitiously lie,
cheat, steal and slander. When your reputa_
tion reaches its inevitable nadir, persist in
your beliefs and scrap your way back to
respectability.
Lie. The most conspicuous example, of
>urse, results from Watergate. A third-rate
rglary? Perhaps, but Watergate led to some
of the most blatant lies the American people
have ever known. Day after day, as the talc
unfolded, Nixon obstructed justice and
professed ignorance as to the details of the
break-in. As Senate Republican Leader Hugh
Scott would remark after hearing the secret
tapings of White Houseconversations
between Nixon and his aides, Nixon's
presidential conduct was a wholly "deplor-
"ble, shabby, disgusting and immoral
rformance." Not that this was anything
new. Historians have now unveiled a trail of
lies left by Richard Milhous Nixon as he
campaigned forCongress, California
governor, Eisenhower's vice president and
eventually, president.
Cheat. Cheating was Nixon's domain. He
loved rules and autocracy, as long as they
didn't apply to him. As president, he bugged
least 17 journalists and other officials that
didn't like, He proposed using "hush
money" to quiet Watergate defendants. He
allowed 78 wealthy California businessmen

to illegally raise $18,235 to account for
political expenses he had totaled as the
vice presidential candidate. He wanted to
hire "thugs" to silence Vietnam war
protesters, and he did hire a gang to
disrupt the 1972Democratic Conventios
by, amongother things, throwing smoke
bombs. He was a child with his hand in
the cookie jar, the president who hired a
team of "plumbers" to plug leaks - going
as fair as breaking into the office of Daniel
Ellsherg' psychiatrist because Nixon
wanted to discredit the tmtan who had
leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press.
Steal. Nixon stole the most precious
commodity in existence:human life.
Coming into office on a platform of
"peace with honor" in Southeast Asia,
Nixon's actual policy consisted of the
infamous Christmas bombings in North
Vietnam and the deadly bombings of
Cambodia - attacks that would lead
directly ta genocidal violence for millions
of Cambodians at the hands of the Khmer
Rouge.
Slander. The Watergate tapes revealed
more than an administration bent on
cover-up; they uncovered the portrait of a
president whocontinuously and destruc-
tively used the word "Jew" as an epithet.
And each of these acts was done as
surreptitiously as possible. The Cambodia

bombings were conducted without the
knowledge or consentofCongress, the
American people and even some high-
level Nixon aides. In every aspect of
his decision making, Tricky Dick
ensured that almost no ione could trace
his shady tracks,
ThIs ts precisely why the historicatl
revisionism that seems to be taking
place since Nixon's death is so
disturbing. The deceased wilt neverbe
an easy issue - human dignity and
respect should always come above
political maneuvering. But thepresi-
dency o f Richard Nixon need not be
revised.Whetheror not one believes
thatopening relations with China or
signing SALT I was revolutionary.
whether or not one agrees with his
expansion of food stamps orhis
proposed negative income tax, the fact
remains that Nixon should not be the
emblem of Americana. He was a crook.
He stole from the American people, he
stole front the Constitution and he stole
from the public trust coffer.
Nixon may have been pardoned
before justice could be done, but his
repmttation should not be given the same
luxury. The real Richard Nixon
deserved nothing of the sort.
Wainess is an LSA junior.