COLLEGE REP. Justin Pfeiffer proves that a little bit of knowledge can do a lot of harm.
A petition, requiring 2000 signatures from College students for Pfeiffer's removal from office, is in circulation. Despite Pfeiffer's simpleton view of history, we should not remove him from office.
In an e-mail circulating among students, Pfeiffer explains that there were those Indians who cooperated with the settlers and those who didn't. He terms the former "good" Indians and the latter "bad" Indians. Then he suggests that the "bad" Indians, by virtue of their unwillingness to cooperate in the taking of their land and food, are therefore savages.
Pfeiffer probably was half-asleep during the American history lecture on this topic. Yes, the settlers thought the Indians were non-Western, unenlightened savages. Pfeiffer didn't figure out that although the Indians were considered savages, it doesn't mean they actually were savages. If Pfeiffer wants to adopt the ridiculous and uninformed views that have been held historically, he should start to believe that the world is flat, that Jews drink the blood of Christian children, and that we should reinstate the slave trade. This is not to say that we should judge history by contemporary standards -- a big historical no-no -- but it is to say that defending narrow-minded historical views contemporaneously is stupid.
Despite Pfeiffer's stupidity, he shouldn't be removed from office. We remove leaders for misconduct, usually for doing something wrong in private such as embezzling SAF money. Pfeiffer is stupid, not unethical.
Booting someone because they hold an unpopular view chills free speech. First we must understand that elected officials won't hold all the views -- smart, intelligent or neutral -- of their constituents. That's why we frequently ask questions in politics along the lines of "Who can we trust to vote his conscience?" This assurance is the best we can get given our representatives can't and won't be in complete agreement with us. Pfeiffer has a right to free speech, and in a public forum no less. That is, any community member could come to Student Council and express the same views as Pfeiffer. Even in his capacity as an elected official, he still retains his right as a student to speak.
This freedom to express views, even uninformed and stupid ones, is good for the community. If it weren't for Pfeiffer, we wouldn't have had this debate, discussed early American history, or have found that the community cares so deeply about this issue. This outpouring of interest is hence a guide for Council in the future, now that they've found that most students, unlike Pfeiffer, aren't reading the "Good Lil' American Boy Primer of American History."
Having a marketplace of ideas means that all ideas -- not just some -- are currency for debate and hence for growth. If we kick Pfeiffer out because we don't like his unpopular views, we're denying some ideas a place in the marketplace based on outrage. This is dangerous because it establishes precedent for good and unpopular ideas also to be defeated when outrage -- rather than intellect -- governs debate. This would be a grave market failure.
In Pfeiffer's defense, he withdrew his proposal when he recognized that Council simply wasn't the venue through which to promote his jingoist agenda. So if you're going to sign his removal petition because you think he doesn't represent you, consider that he removed his proposal upon learning that it was unpopular.
The truth is, if we remove Pfeiffer, it will be because we don't like him. It will be a popularity contest, or in Pfeiffer's case, an unpopularity contest. We are an intelligent body of students. We must be above this.
There are some better responses to this problem than signing the petition. You could introduce a motion at the next meeting to censure Justin Pfeiffer for his antics' irretrievable loss of valuable time. If you're not the formal type, ignore Justin. If you are really inspired, give him nasty looks or make fun of his views to your friends. But don't impeach him.
The University community seems to be in agreement on two things. First, we think Pfeiffer is a moron. Second, we therefore don't like Pfeiffer. It is crucial, however, that we don't remove a representative on feelings of animosity. Don't sign the petition.
(Jeffrey Eisenberg's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 19 hours agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 6 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
