Illinois newspaper editors get suspended after printing a cartoon depicting Muhammed.

When will it end?

just because a particular group or a particular person may not know the truth, that doesn't mean it's not out there to be known. It most definitely can be known. Furthermore, if truth can't ever be known, it is somewhat futile to try and approach it.

If truth existed, then I would have to believe, by the very nature of truth and how we define it, that EVERYONE would know this supposed truth. But because everyone doesn't know it, because everyone has varying opinions rooted in the same facts, that leads me to believe that some things do not have a truth value, that sometimes, there is no right or wrong answer. Sometimes both answers are "right," sometimes both answers have easily discerned positive and negative consequences. The reason we pick one is because we make a value judgment, and a value judgment isn't quantitative, or even qualitative really. It's like Mill's greatest good for the greatest number, although defining good and how much of it is always sticky. That's why truth isn't "knowable" in an absolute sense.

It's not futile to approach truth, because great philosophers have said that they know nothing. The one that comes to mind immediately is Socrates. But they also caveat this by saying that even though they know nothing with absolute certainty, that kind of thinking will stifle them, freeze them really, and prevent them from taking action. And so, while truth is not knowable, we must profess "truth" for the purposes of taking action lest we all become frozen in place by our own indecisiveness.

If one doesn't believe in the things they belong to or claim to adhere to, then one shouldn't belong to that denomination or political party or political magazine, etc. He should be quiet. If a person advocates things that he does not believe to be true, then he is denying the existence of truth and is thus a relativist. And relativism is a belief that we are all here on earth to get the house with a two car garage and nothing else. It denies the existence of virtue or the need to pursue virtue. That is not the world I want to live in. No, I will continue to be bold and posit that truth exists, is knowable, and is attainable.

First of all, you don't think I'd rather live in a world where truth is knowable and attainable? I know it isn't because if truth existed, and if truth was what we really all think of it as, then EVERYONE would acknowledge this "universal truth" (because truth has a certain amount of universality built into its definition that we simply dont find in the real world). But because not everyone acknowledges certain truths leads me to believe they. do. not. exist.

You raise an interesting question with virtue. Going back to the classics once again, this time Plato, Plato makes an interesting analogy with regards to a hammer. He says that the virtue of a hammer is how well it hammers (drives in nails) just as the virtue of an eye is how well it sees. And so, the virtue of human beings is in how well we are humans.

Overall, I think we do a pretty bang-up job at being humans. Look at the people rioting over cartoons. Look at the genocides in Darfur and Rwanda. Look at the holocaust, the Trail of Tears, the Spanish Inquisition, the Reign of Terror, and all the other times in history where people have irrationally allowed sentiments of feeling (hatred, distrust, etc...) to dictate actions that had REAL NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES.

But, at the same time, there are shared qualities of human beings that I recognize that lead me to believe there is some virtue. The times where men and women sit down at tables and set aside petty differences, foolish pride, and wills to power in order to make the changes necessary for this world to become a better place. It's rarer that we see this at the highest level, but I see it every day in real life, which leads me to believe it does exist.

Now, if this is virtue, like the hammer and the eye, it implies that humans have a purpose. Like the hammer and eye, that humans were designed with an intent. I think Madison was the first to make this argument in one of the federalist papers, that if virtue exists, then it implies a Creator. I do believe in God. But I also believe God is ineffable. There is virtue in human beings, but this virtue is not in any way related to truth. You made too big of an argumentative jump to say that no truth implies no virtue.

I also believe that if there is a God, then that God would have to leave no trace of His/Her existence for this world to make any sense. Truth in the sense that I've been talking about it refers to some kind of Absolute Justice. I don't think that's for us to know. God is Truth, and because I also believe in free will, you can't know truth in this world. Because if you could know Truth, if you could know God, then free will falls apart. How can you have free will in the presence of God? How can you have Truth in a world of free will? You can't.

Furthremore, even though I believe virtue exists, I don't think anyone can be a "perfect human" here on earth. To quote scripture, somewhere in Romans it says: "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (I can already hear the grimmacing as the accusations of being a "cafeteria Christian" or "only taking passages as it pertains to what I believe" are on their way)

But back to virtue. None of us are "virtuous" humans in the sense that we fulfill our purpose or intent here on earth. However, that doesn't and shouldn't keep us from trying to be good people. None of us can "know" truth, but that doesn't and shouldn't keep us from seeking out the answers to solve our problems.

Brian, you're making a value judgment against Sexuality studies because you don't think it's important, and so you falsely assume think that everyone should think it isn't important.

Sexuality Studies deserves everyone's chagrin. It is a waste of taxpayer money to say the least. You may not be able to get into that class that you need to graduate, but you can learn all about "Pornography, Sexuality and American Culture."

You say it's a waste of taxpayer money, but you don't say why. Pornography is a multibillion dollar industry in America that nobody talks about. It's having impacts, whether we want to acknowledge them or not, they're there. I think the university is a perfect setting for having intelligent discussion and research into why and how this thing, porn, is permeating our culture and society.

You assume that having sexuality studies is an automatic condonement of such activity. You don't have to "approve" of something morally in order to try to understand it. You could argue, I suppose, that it's not worth understanding or that it's not able to be understood because it's "wrong." I think the rightness/wrongness of sexuality studies is merely opinion, and so neither value judgments (mine or yours) can be said with any authority.

The marketplace of ideas comes into play because "truth's collision with error" is how you find answers, but Mill also notes how everything is not black and white, that sometimes there are varying shades of gray. This is why the marketplace of ideas is important because when the rightness or wrongness of a situation is unclear, especially when two differing opinions are based in fact, then there has to be middleground that is found.

Now, about this truth business...

There most definitely are right answers. There most definitely is truth. Just because we may not know the answer, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You're making my argument for me. I'll grant you that truth might exist, but because we may not ever know the answer, you have to treat truth as an abstraction, as something that can't ever be known, only approached.

And so, if truth can't ever be "known," then solving problems can't be about finding the truth. It has to be about finding something acceptable. That doesn't make society stale and complacent. It makes society vibrant and dynamic. Because I also believe that even though truth can't ever be known, it shouldn't stop us from seeking it out.

I also think we're getting bogged down in language here. I think truth exists insofar as it can pertain to knowable facts. IE: the sun will rise tomorrow, gravity makes stuff fall, etc... When I talk about truth that can't be ascertained, I'm referring more towards opinions about how things should be run. Two differing opinions can both be rooted in fact, the same facts, and yet still be total opposites from each other. You can't say that one is truth and the other is not. You can say that one MIGHT be truth and the other not, but for practical purposes, you can't ever treat either as truth. That's assuming a God-like ability to percieve reality. None of us should be so bold.

Also, I'm done talking about tuition and Seth and all that. It just gives me a headache. I understand where you're coming from, I can only hope you understand where I'm coming from, and I think this is just one of those things where you gotta agree to disagree (or possibly in my case, resign yourself to being misunderstood because you're too inarticulate).

A wonderful letter to the editor ran in the DTH today from Tom O'Keefe, a senior economics major. It made basically the same points I tried to make but was unsuccessful at doing earlier:

"The self-importance of those two bodies is not commensurate with either's power on or positive contributions to campus, and until the groups start moving mountains themselves, perhaps they ought not to overstate their own importance or Seth Dearmin's failures."

The way Seth has been crucified in the paper and by this vote of no confidence feels like a witch hunt.

"Given that the Board of Trustees long ago decided to raise tuition ... the people who expected him to stop increases were indulging in extremely wishful thinking."

That echoes my argument about how Seth has no actual power. But this was my favorite by far:

"... many students support the unpretentious, down-to-earth approach Seth has taken to his responsibilities as student body president."

This is in reference to Seth supporting tuition and goes back to my "don't we look like selfish twentysomethings by opposing the hikes?" argument. Tuition increases make sense if they are going to legitimate causes, and if paying teaching assistants more will ensure that we keep getting the best and brightest TAs in every classroom, then that sounds like something sound for us to be investing in. This isn't anything like the waste of money the green energy project in Morrison is (or will be).


and now for something completely different.

UNC lost to dook tonight. It was a hard-fought game. When Reyshawn hit that three pointer that pulled us to within three, I thought then that we'd do it. When people started filing out when we were down 7 with less than a minute left, I was angry. We're getting better every game, and we gave one of the best teams in the nation a serious run for its money. JJ Redick is disgusting--those off-balance three pointers were ridiculous. He sold his soul to the devil for that jumper, and I think we all know who go the better deal.

Ian Williams' column ran again in the DTH. I'll leave you with my favorite part:

"I hate Duke with an infernal passion undying. I hate every leaf of every tree on that sickening campus. I hate every fake cherub Gothic piece of crap that litters the buildings like hemorrhoidal testaments to imagined superiority. When I see those Dookie boneheads shoe-polishing their faces navy blue on television, squandering their parents' money with their fratty elitist bad sportsmanship antics and Saab stories, I want to puke all over Durham."

First thing, you've got the right to free press. This means that yes, the political cartoons are protected under the 1st amendment. (I don't know what the Danish constiution says, but the fact that the Danish government is backing them leads me to believe they have something similar).

An addendum to "First thing": if you live in an Islamic state (Islam is a religion and a theocratic form of government), then you wouldn't have this right to print the cartoons. All the other arguments don't follow, but you can argue like Thoreau and Dr. King that you can't be a good citizen under a bad government, and theocracies are bad governments. And so, you should still have the right to run the cartoon even if your government doesn't explicitly allow you to because freedom of speech/press is something universal that everyone should be able to appreciate (ie: Kant's categorical imperatives).

Second thing, you've got the right to freedom of religion. "Congress shall make no law establishing or prohibiting the free practice thereof." I'm pretty sure that's what it says. Again, I don't know Danish law, and I guess you could argue part of the problem is looking at things through a "Western lense." That, I say, is retarded. It is absurd to be expected to devalue my own culture in an effort to superimpose someone else's culture into my arguments.

And so, while Muslims have the right to practice their religion any way they choose, that right does not extend to having their religious beliefs imposed on other people. Christians can't tell everyone to stay home on the sabath just because they believe it should be a day of rest. That's a choice everyone needs to be free to choose. For a long time I thought the first amendment said something like "freedom to choose religion." Anywho.

Just because Muslims themselves don't want to depict Muhammed doesn't mean that other people can't. John Stuart Mill would call that kind of restriction an "infringement on someone else's liberty"--and if you remember, everyone has unlimited liberty insofar as it doesn't infringe on someone else's liberty.

Now, Taylor, you say that journalists have this ethical dilemna because we know that these cartoons will cause riots. This is wrong. Just because you know leaving the Hope Diamond on your dresser after you go to bed while your sketchy uncle is it town will mean that the thing gets stolen doesn't redeem the act of stealing.

Furthermore, it is not reasonable to expect that running a political cartoon will lead to rioting. Reasonable people don't burn down buildings because of a cartoon. A cartoon. I'm sorry but this religious fanatacism has got to stop. Only by demonstrating how crazy certain followers of Islam are will there start to be negative consequences. Can you imagine what would happen if in America people rioted every time Bugs Bunny cracked a joke at the Bible?

It is unfortunate, to say the least, that embassies have been burned and lives have been lost because of the free press. But those people did not die in vain. Free press is a fundamental tenet of society. It's the "fourth branch" of government, and without it, I don't know that you can have a successful Republic. And as my arguments pointed out, freedom of religion does not extend to telling people who don't follow your religion what to do. Freedom of press does not "trump" freedom of religion in this instance. Freedom of religion is limited, and rioting because you don't get your way isn't covered under its terms.

Brian, compelling article. But we're not Colorado, and while it tries to compare the quality of education here versus there, I don't think you can. North Carolina's public universities are the envy of the nation. UNC is ranked number one time and time again. The only school that rivals us is UVA, but I thought competition was a good thing, right? You don't just want to be an unopposed number one every year...

And by low, I mean not charging unnecessary fees such as the $50 athletic fee that will go to renovate Carmichael gym.

I think this is an appeal to a value judgment, because there are reasoned arguments both ways. I, for one, have been to many sold out women's games in Carmichael (I'm too young to remember any of the mens' days), and it's one of the most intense basketball environments I've ever been in. It even rivals the Mens ACC Tournament. And from a historical standpoint, Carmichael means something special to this university. We had a damn near 90% winning percentage there. It's where we staged one of the greatest comebacks in college basketball history: 8 points in 17 seconds--and get this: the three point shot hadn't been added to the sport yet.

$50 seems a small price to pay to preserve this gem of a gym (hahaha--I just couldn't help myself). Even if only for its historical value...

Furthermore, being a welfare university means not burdening students when you waste money on so many things--a Sexuality Studies department, black cultural center, construction of buildings that undergraduates will never step in, and an ever growing legion of administrators.

First of all, welfare university sounds harsh. There are a lot of things the government does that rubs me the wrong way, investing in education--especially higher education--isn't one of them.

And I don't know that sexuality studies necessarily deserves as much chagrin as you often give it. I don't think sexuality studies is going to overtake the history or political science departments in size or scope anytime soon, and a diversity of opinions and ideas--isn't that what Mill was talking about with his marketplace of ideas? Shouldn't we let the weight of these studies dictate the importance we give them? The easy thing to do is ignore them, the harder thing to do is seek out its proper place among the "more academic" departments.

Hard to argue with the black cultural center thing. In a perfect world, you don't need black cultural centers because race has no meaning--you'd just be differentiating and even positive stereotypes/separating is harmful on some levels. But perhaps we need black cultural centers as a step along the long hard road to the place we all want to go, a place where race has no significance.

The growing legion of administrators is a good point. The article you mentioned made us look like greedy bastards. And the whole raising chancellors pay and stuff to be more competitive really is an aggrandized "keeping up with the Joneses." I don't know what the answer is, because I learned in economics that salaries are something sticky in an economy--it's really hard to cut them across the board without serious negative consequences. Which is ironic, because they were increased to avoid "serious negative consequences" according to that article. Oh life...

However, if UNC wishes to privatize, go ahead. We need less institutions on the public dime. But until that happens, ever increasing tuition and fees are just another pot of funds for administrators to waste.

What's wrong with wanting to be a public university that rivals the prestige of a private institution? Obviously, we can't all go to Harvard. If only because we all can't all go to prep schools like Exeter and the like. But what we can do, as concerned citizens, is invest in our public institutions--and if we use private models as our basis in creating public institutions, I'm still failing to see the problem.

If America is really to be a land of opportunity, then education has to be "the last great equalizer." Public instiutions need to be places where it doesn't matter how much money is in your bank account, who your parents were, or any of that other nonsense. What should matter most is your capability; it should be like a meritocracy. And in my short experience here, I've drawn one conclusion. I go to school with 16,000 amazing individuals. And I know that not all of them could go here without the "public dime," and I know that while a lot of them are smart enough, a lot of them couldn't have gone to those private schools because of fiscal limitations as well.

But what's my real conclusion? Conversations like this are healthy. There are no right answers because nothing is perfect, no matter how hard we try. But discussions like this help find the middle ground that everyone can be happy with, and in extreme cases, at least tolerate. The only problem is that we can hem and haw all day long on this here blog, but does it really make a difference? Freedom of speech only matters if you have someplace powerful from which to speak.

ok, you're right. i kind of swept over the fact that dearmin was in support of tuition, and that the students were generally opposed (although i know some students who think tution increases are good--that it makes our school a better place. to that i say: tution = 12% of our school's budget, so clearly there are other more powerful venues to "fundraise" to make our school a better place).

what i had meant to say in my last post (and i kind of did, just got muddled in a lot of other stuff) is that our SBP has no real power. and even though he/she has no real power, we still expect miracles.

and why is it that we're so opposed to tuition hikes? the obvious answer is that we can't afford/don't want to pay more. but what if UNC really needs that money? what if our school will be worse place without it? doesn't that make us look like selfish twentysomethings?

Student Congress did a vote of no confidence for the current SBP Seth Dearmin. Apparently, if this was any other system of government besides UNC's, this would have serious consequences. But student government? Who cares? Let's examine.

I remember hearing that if you want to be on student congress, all you really have to do is signup and get something like 80 signatures. A quick look on the student congress website revealed that in many districts, there are a certain number of allocated seats and not that many people filling them. Actually, only three districts had all the seats filled: north campus, granville, and greek housing.

But this was meant to be a criticism of the student body presidency, not student congress (congress appropriates student fees, so as meaningless as I'd like to think their job is, they actually do serve some purpose).

A quick browsing of student code listed all the Student Body President's roles. From what I could tell, he/she gets to sit on a few boards. That's it. Most of these boards, they are one voice among 13 or so other people. That's not a lot of power, not a lot at all, and yet we the students expect miracles from our SBP. It's simply not fair. Student Body President is a glorified lobbyist, and little more. They have only as much power as the real decision makers are willing to abrogate. When the stakes are small, I'm sure the SBP gets a big voice. But when the stakes are big--you know, when millions of dollars are involved or something like that--then I'm pretty sure all the old white men sit around and are like "ok kid, now let us decide what we're really going to do."

Now, please realize that I've never participated in student government, and I've never spoken to any SBP--past or present. This is just a naive outsider's opinion of what I think goes on. No other answer really makes sense. I know Seth. He was my TA last year in Religion 43. He's a great guy, and he really does care about the students. If he actually had power and sway with those boards he sits on, I'm sure he'd be wielding it. The fact that he's gotten no results leads me to believe it's because he has no actual power.

Let's stop fooling ourselves. We're students. They'll always think they know best. Whether or not they actually do is another question entirely.