OSU’s Churchill Clones
By Thomas Ryan
FrontPageMagazine.com
March 8, 2005


The Peace Studies program at Ohio State University (OSU) is purportedly dedicated to analyzing “the causes of war and other forms of disruptive conflict, and also the causes of peace, toward the end of developing long term peace building strategies.” However, as in the case of dozens of other Peace Studies programs on academic campuses across the United States, OSU’s program is in fact geared toward indoctrinating students with anti-American hatred.

 

Offered on the university’s main campus in Columbus, OSU’s Peace Studies program is part of the school’s International Studies Program – an interdisciplinary, interdepartmental course of study offering students a major, minor, and certificate qualification “built around courses on contemporary global issues and different world areas.” The program was founded after World War II to “provide a United States emerging from decades of isolationism with the knowledge of other world areas necessary for it to perform its new role as political superpower and economic engine of a devastated world.” Its stated goals are to promote “world-mindedness, training for domestic vocations involving foreign relations, preparation for the foreign service, and advanced linguistic and cultural training to allow professional students of all types to be able to practice abroad.”

 

A required course for students enrolled in the Peace Studies specialization at OSU-Columbus is “Introduction to Peace Studies,” in which “students are encouraged to explore the numerous dimensions of violence and the prospects for peace in our world today.” This course was designed by Daniel J. Christie, who developed the class after working as a visiting professor at Malaysia’s Institute Technologie Mara in the mid-1980’s.

 

Today, Christie is a Professor of Psychology at OSU’s Marion Campus, which does not offer the Peace Studies specialization, but nonetheless provides Christie with a place to research “intercultural sensitivity and bias.” Christie, a psychologist by profession, has twice received OSU’s Alumni Distinguished Teaching Award, as well as OSU’s Distinguished Diversity Award, formerly titled the Distinguished Affirmative Action Award.

 

While teaching at OSU, Christie also served as president of the Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence, which is the Peace Psychology Division that was established within the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1990; Christie still serves as chair of the organization’s publications committee. The goal of this division of the APA is to “encourage psychological research, education, and training on issues concerning peace, nonviolent conflict resolution, reconciliation, and the causes, consequences and prevention of war.” To this end, the organization has put forth its criticism of the War on Terror, stating:

 

Military and intelligence responses are inherently incomplete, since they do not address issues of social justice, militarism, and root causes (why people like bin Laden engage in terrorism, what makes others like him susceptible to his messages and influence). In fact, purely military responses are problematic in that they tend to spark additional terrorism, destabilize entire regions, and stimulate radicalism and backlash.

 

The APA’s Peace Psychology Division recently enacted the Peace Psychology Resource Project, which offers ideas for class assignments and “valuable links to additional materials.” Groups for which the Division’s website provides links include:

 

 

Christie has also served as president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PSR), a group that is a member of the anti-American, anti-War on Terror campaigns of Win Without War, Abolition 2000, and United for Peace and Justice. In 2002, Christie signed a statement that was written in cooperation with the nuclear disarmament group Urgent Call. The document stated, “long years of military activity abroad have contributed to a massive resentment of U.S. policies, and to a smaller group of individuals willing to risk all to inflict terror upon the nation they see as responsible for much of the destitution visible around the world.” Both PSR and Urgent Call were part of the Nuclear Freeze movement of the early 1980s, a scheme that would have frozen Soviet nuclear and military superiority in place, and would have rendered the new American president, Ronald Reagan, unable to close that gap to any appreciable degree. Reagan opposed the concept of a unilateral freeze, and his opposition was ultimately vindicated by America’s Cold War victory. The success of Reagan’s strategy is detailed in Peter Schweizer’s book Victory: The Reagan Administration’s Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union.

 

In his classes, Christie has used David Barash’s book Introduction to Peace Studies (second edition co-written with Charles Webel, titled Peace and Conflict Studies). This text does not offer an objective, academic overview of the complex issues of war and peace. A presentation of different possible causes that might lead to world conflict are non-existent; all blame for world conflict is laid at the feet of the United States. Rooted in Marxist ideology, the book’s clear objective is to indoctrinate students with an anti-American worldview. Far from promoting any kind of “peace” or conflict resolution, Peace and Conflict Studies actually supports violence when it serves socialist goals (i.e., Castro’s revolution in 1959), and justifies the aggressive actions of America’s totalitarian enemies. For instance, the text implies that JFK provoked the Cuban Missile Crisis, because he “determined that he wouldn’t be pushed around again by the Soviet leader.” The text immediately adds, “Fortunately for the world, Kruschev was . . . willing to back down.” Though the Soviets sparked the conflict by deploying missiles in Cuba, the book portrays Kruschev as a hero who saved the world from potential catastrophe.

 

Regarding 9/11, the authors explain that terror, when committed against America, must be seen as the last resort of the poor, the oppressed, and the downtrodden. “‘Terrorists,’” they write (the authors place the word in quotation marks), “are people who may feel militarily unable to confront their perceived enemies directly and who accordingly use violence, or the threat of violence, against noncombatants to achieve their political aims.”

They characterize terrorism as “a contemporary variant of what has been described as guerrilla warfare, dating back at least to the anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist struggles for national liberation conducted in North America and Western Europe during the late 18th and early 19th centuries against the British and French Empires.” In other words, there is no appreciable moral distinction to be drawn between George Washington and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. The authors then explain why they put the word “terrorist” in quotation marks: “one person’s ‘terrorist’ is another’s ‘freedom fighter,’” they say.

 

What does Daniel Christie think of the book Peace and Conflict Studies? He believes that “Barash and Webel have penned a masterpiece that should appeal to seasoned scholars of peace and conflict studies as well as to others who have little knowledge of this multidisciplinary field.” He also notes:

 

It is refreshing to see the authors begin the book with some good intellectual hygiene, owning up to their attitudinal proclivities, which they describe as “anti-war, anti-violence, anti-nuclear, anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment, pro-environment, pro-human rights, pro-social justice, pro-peace, and politically progressive.”

 

Christie praises the fact that the book devotes very little attention to the issue of Islamic terrorism, stating:

 

Only a few pages are given to “terrorism,” and although the coverage might seem scant, the authors offer a number of critical distinctions (e.g., state vs. nonstate sponsored), place the problem in context, and leave the reader feeling that September 11, 2001 was nothing new. When viewed in historical context, 9/11 begins to look like merely another iteration of organized efforts to meet political objectives through violence.

 

Sociology and psychology professor Basil Kardaras teaches OSU’s Introduction to Peace Studies course. Kardaras is a speaker for Central Ohioans for Peace, a group dedicated to “generat[ing] effective ways of making [their] voices heard,” and “hold[ing] leaders accountable for advancing peaceful solutions to conflicts.” Toward this end, the organization promotes such far-Left groups as Not In Our Name, Veterans for Peace, and MoveOn.org. It also encourages its members to make and display signs bearing slogans such as: “War begins with ‘Dubya,’” “Empires fall,” and “I asked for universal health care and all I got was this lousy stealth bomber.” The group took part in the April 12, 2003, “End the Occupation” rally sponsored by International ANSWER in Washington, D.C. ANSWER is a front for the Workers World Party, which supports Kim Jong-il, Saddam Hussein, and Slobodan Milosevic. (International ANSWER leader Ramsey Clark eagerly sought -- and secured -- a position as Saddam’s lawyer following the latter’s December 2003 capture.

 

Kardaras also took part in the Marxism 2000 conference held at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst in September of that year. The tagline of the event read: “the party’s not over.”  Of the symposium, the Wall Street Journal remarked, “the conference appropriately is being held not in Moscow or Beijing or even Hanoi but in the one place organizers are confident they will find enough party faithful: Massachusetts.” Kardaras sat on the panel of a discussion titled “Rethinking Globalization: Neoliberal Conceptualizations, Intellectual Property, Sustainable Development, and the Environment.” Other participants in the event included Marc Becker, a history professor at Truman State University who is an organizer for the radical group Historians Against The War; and Angela Davis, Communist professor from the University of California-Santa Cruz.

 

Another professor in OSU’s Peace Studies program is Mark Grimsley, who teaches history at the Columbus campus, and who has been the recipient of the university’s Alumni Award for Distinguished Teaching. Grimsley has taught the Peace Studies elective course “History of War.” On his website, entitled, the “The Kinder, Gentler Military History Page,” Grimsley sets out to admonish his colleagues who teach war history classes from a perspective in which war can be seen as a viable solution to certain problems. He insists:

 

Too often military historians take what might called the “drawn gun” approach to their subject.  It is as if they focus not on the individual who has drawn the gun (his reasons for drawing the gun, why he has one in the first place), but focus on the gun itself – the armed forces – and take violent conflict resolution as a given. Still worse, military historians tend to utilize the same intellectual categories as the military establishment. That tendency, to the degree in which it is indulged, makes independent, critical analysis more difficult.  Peace Studies provide a highly useful corrective.

 

Grimsley’s website provides links to a number of anti-American and anti-Israel organizations, including Friends for a Non-Violent World, a group that turned a blind eye to the brutalities of Saddam’s regime, and instead blamed the Iraqi people’s pre-liberation suffering on U.S. economic sanctions.

 

In his “War Historian” blog, Grimsley has plainly acknowledged that there is a leftwing predisposition inherent at Ohio State University, especially at the graduate level. He has reduced this trend to a “self-fulfilling prophecy” whereby conservative students fear scorn from the biased nature of the school, and therefore “do not apply to grad school in the first place.”

 

Grimsley chose not to condemn Ward Churchill’s remark suggesting that the victims of the 9/11 attacks were like “little Eichmanns.” Grimsley wrote  about which he instead attempted to argue the statement’s metaphoric effectiveness. Grimsley wrote:

 

I continue to wrestle with the issue of whether the “little Eichmanns” metaphor can be made coherent. As I have said, a major problem with the Ward Churchill essay is that the essay fails to deploy the metaphor effectively, at least as an aid to analysis. As an aid to incitement, it has proven to be quite effective. . . . There are those, like me, who think opinions can be valuable especially if they seem dangerous or disagreeable.

 

This existence of political partisanship and anti-Americanism is not limited to OSU’s Peace Studies Program. Philosophy professor Joseph Levine too has been a vehement critic of Israel, President Bush, and U.S. policy. In November 2003, Levine helped to organize the Third National Conference of the Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSM), which serves as the student faction of the International Solidarity Movement. While PSM aims to “[bring] about an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine,” it does not condemn Palestinian suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. PSM spokeswoman Charlotte Kates says, “Why is there something particularly horrible about ‘suicide bombing’ -- except for the extreme dedication conveyed in the resistance fighter’s willingness to use his or her own body to fight?” At PSM’s Second National Conference in 2002, which was held at the University of Michigan and which Levine reportedly attended, participants chanted, “Kill the Jews!”

 

Levine candidly states that notwithstanding the fact that the world is filled with repressive governments which abuse countless millions of people, his main focus is to condemn Israel:

 

Some people argue that it is unfair to target Israel when so many other governments deny their citizens basic human rights, and others are guilty of occupying foreign land as well. In fact, there is no inconsistency here. It is absurd to argue that whenever you direct your energy to fight abuse in one area, you must do so everywhere. Following such a course would be a recipe for total paralysis and passivity…there are particular reasons to focus on the Israeli occupation. Israel is singular in the degree of economic and political support it receives from the United States. That places a special moral burden on American citizens to do something about Israel's brutal behavior, because without U.S. support, it couldn't be sustained.

 

Levine seeks to include students in pro-Palestinian campaigns on the OSU campus. He exhorts the university to divest entirely from Israel – and actively tries to recruit students to join his cause. Levine is the faculty adviser to the Committee for Justice in Palestine, a pro-Palestinian group that joins forces with other radicals in condemning Israeli security measures while failing to denounce Palestinian suicide bombings. Though he is an atheist, Levine affirms that it is his “Jewishness that drives him to scrutinize Israel so closely.”

 

Levine took part in a June 14, 2002, protest against George W. Bush, when the President came to speak at OSU’s commencement ceremony about volunteerism and community participation. Though only one individual was ejected from the grounds for disturbing the peace, Levine complained, “There was no need for them to clamp down on free speech. They [security officials] knew pretty well what was planned. There was nothing especially disruptive about that. This was an attempt to really put a chill on protest activity.” Levine went on to say, “The President is pushing an agenda, one that is antithetical to the goals of higher education. His agenda includes a redistribution of resources toward the wealthy, while the function of public higher education is in large part to level the playing field and enable redistribution in a more egalitarian direction.”