2008 Woodie Awards
World Views writer responds to Professor Motahar's criticisms
Nicole McRuiz
Issue date: 10/18/07 Section: World Views
- Page 1 of 1
Last week, I received an email from Professor Eshragh Motahar of the Economics Department. He raised some potentially valid points about my article in last week's issue of the Concordiensis, "President Bush Granted Rare TV Interview in Saudi Arabia."
The article discussed Bush's recent interview with a Saudi television station. Professor Motahar took issue with me writing that, ". . . Bush claimed that peaceful diplomacy between the two groups is absolutely contingent upon Iran getting rid of its nuclear arsenal." I do indeed say this in the article. Professor Motahar claimed that by writing this, "You are making a statement which is false."
He seemed to think that because the above statement was not explicitly set off in quotation marks in my original article, that it represented my opinion, not the opinion of George W. Bush. But the words "Bush claimed" make it more than obvious that this is not my opinion, rather the opinion of President Bush. I would guess that most English professors at Union would agree that quotation marks are not the only way of expressing someone else's opinion.
I do not believe that my statement was incorrect. I never claimed that Iran has a nuclear arsenal. I simply wrote that Bush believes this is so. Had Professor Motahar read with a more discerning eye for detail, he would have been able to decipher the difference.
On a more sensitive note, Professor Motahar also took issue with the next part of the article. I quote Bush as saying "....my country is a country of peace." Then I go on to say that I think Bush did a good job in the interview. Professor Motahar responded to the marriage of these two statements with the question, "do you regard Iraqis as human beings?"
I can see how my statements would leave Professor Motahar perplexed, but he should keep in mind that I'm not arguing the rightness or wrongness of the War in Iraq. I'm evaluating Bush's performance in the interview; this is pretty clear simply from reading the title of the article! I stand by my statement that I think Bush did a good job in the interview. It is possible to disagree with someone, but still admire how that person presents his argument.
And I think that Bush's statements about this country are indeed true. Yes, we've gotten ourselves into a terribly complex mess with all sorts of moral puzzles, but this war was started for peaceful reasons. And no, I don't think it would hurt us to be a little more patriotic sometimes. Professor Motahar is of course entitled to his own opinion in this matter.
I thank Professor Motahar for taking enough interest in our student newspaper to contact me; it shows an enthusiastic faculty member who takes pride in what the campus is producing. I invite him or anyone else to contact me with any questions or issues at mcruizm@union.edu.
Oh, and for the record, I do consider Iraqis human beings.
The article discussed Bush's recent interview with a Saudi television station. Professor Motahar took issue with me writing that, ". . . Bush claimed that peaceful diplomacy between the two groups is absolutely contingent upon Iran getting rid of its nuclear arsenal." I do indeed say this in the article. Professor Motahar claimed that by writing this, "You are making a statement which is false."
He seemed to think that because the above statement was not explicitly set off in quotation marks in my original article, that it represented my opinion, not the opinion of George W. Bush. But the words "Bush claimed" make it more than obvious that this is not my opinion, rather the opinion of President Bush. I would guess that most English professors at Union would agree that quotation marks are not the only way of expressing someone else's opinion.
I do not believe that my statement was incorrect. I never claimed that Iran has a nuclear arsenal. I simply wrote that Bush believes this is so. Had Professor Motahar read with a more discerning eye for detail, he would have been able to decipher the difference.
On a more sensitive note, Professor Motahar also took issue with the next part of the article. I quote Bush as saying "....my country is a country of peace." Then I go on to say that I think Bush did a good job in the interview. Professor Motahar responded to the marriage of these two statements with the question, "do you regard Iraqis as human beings?"
I can see how my statements would leave Professor Motahar perplexed, but he should keep in mind that I'm not arguing the rightness or wrongness of the War in Iraq. I'm evaluating Bush's performance in the interview; this is pretty clear simply from reading the title of the article! I stand by my statement that I think Bush did a good job in the interview. It is possible to disagree with someone, but still admire how that person presents his argument.
And I think that Bush's statements about this country are indeed true. Yes, we've gotten ourselves into a terribly complex mess with all sorts of moral puzzles, but this war was started for peaceful reasons. And no, I don't think it would hurt us to be a little more patriotic sometimes. Professor Motahar is of course entitled to his own opinion in this matter.
I thank Professor Motahar for taking enough interest in our student newspaper to contact me; it shows an enthusiastic faculty member who takes pride in what the campus is producing. I invite him or anyone else to contact me with any questions or issues at mcruizm@union.edu.
Oh, and for the record, I do consider Iraqis human beings.
Be the first to comment on this story