What is American hospitality? Throughout the ages there have been various ideals concerning hospitality, and it seems very strange to me that there is not a consistent idea of what hospitality means in America. Whether you consider chivalry in the Middle Ages, laws concerning treatment of strangers in ancient Rome and Greece, or even the incredibly welcoming laws among Bedouins in the deserts of the Middle East that still persist today, there is a basic conception of hospitality that a culture embraces. Even within America, people comment on how nice people in the Midwest are, or romanticize good old-fashioned Southern hospitality. But it seems as if, in its current iteration, 21st- century American hospitality needs a severe reboot.
This summer I was traveling around Israel in a group, and we stayed in a Bedouin tent. There, with the help of a translator, a Bedouin explained to us his concept of hospitality. He explained that in his culture any person, known or stranger, enemy or friend, was welcome at a Bedouin family’s tent for three days. During that time there could be no fighting and no questions. The guest should be served food and tea (which was delicious) and not much else. This sort of welcome with open arms fosters a great sense of community.
Contrast this with the recent trouble that former Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson had in inviting his good friend, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to visit him at the University of Chicago. Henry Paulson currently heads the independent Paulson Institute, located at the University of Chicago, and Condoleezza Rice is coming out with a new book, No Higher Honor: A Memoir of My Years in Washington. Neither of these former Secretaries is currently involved with their former departments in any more than an ancillary sense, but in the past they worked together under former President George W. Bush.
To some, it seems that working under former President Bush is a complete condemnation of character. Following in the wake of the Occupy protests, a group formed on Facebook named “Unwelcoming Hank and Condi—Occupy Hyde Park”. This group was formed with the explicit purpose of making guests to this university feel unwelcome. The detailed description on the group page claims (correctly) that Paulson and Rice worked both in the private and public sectors, for both large companies and our large government. Members of the group found all of this to be so offensive that their commenters ranged from asking for help in “A PUBLIC TRIAL AGAINST HANK PAULSON” to a request for students to call the University of Chicago’s offices and ask “why they are hosting terrorists.” While everyone should respect free speech, and everyone has a First Amendment—guaranteed right to share their opinions, there is a difference between sharing an opinion and being rude. As hosts, we should respect our guests, and, if we disagree with them, attempt to peaceably address that disagreement. The whole event was going to be a question-and-answer session—where better to ask polite but pointed questions on controversial policies?
Unfortunately, that would have been far too civil, and would not have allowed people to feel as free as they can possibly be in expressing themselves. Some even went so far as to request that people try to sneak in, with posters and noisemakers, in order to interrupt the speeches that would have been made by what they refer to so vulgarly as “a wall street parasite and war profiteer come together.” This would be a definite infringement of free speech, as the people who were coming for the express purpose of speaking (and whom a majority of students would be seeking to listen to) would be drowned out by a minority. This is outrageous. When group members were asked how they felt about this stifled discourse and sharing of opinions, the response was immediate and visceral. Within one hour of the post going up on the group, five people on eight posts commented as to why the stifling of Secretaries Rice and Paulson’s speech was a good thing. Reasons were given ranging from violent oppression and anecdotes of murder (in an abstract sense) to a denial that free speech exists in the first place, arguing that Rice, specifically, had lost her right to free speech.
The University has stated that Condoleezza Rice’s speech has been postponed due to a scheduling conflict, and I hope this is the case. For whatever reason, the University of Chicago has proven to be a bad host, and certain students have succeeded in their stated mission of being unwelcoming. Through new media, through embracing ideas that run contrary to the spirit of hard work and enterprise that make America such a great country and through ignoring the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, we have together failed as hosts.
Eric Wessan is a second-year in the College majoring in political science.
I was no fan of the Bush Administration, but I’m ashamed at how the protesters acted. Like Henry Kissinger, Dr. Rice is a scholar by trade. Which means she probably had a lot of interesting and insightful things to say. Would I want her in the White House? Absolutely not. But you have to admit it would be pretty damn cool to take a political science class with her, let alone hear her give a speech at a one-time event.
Although, if all she was going to do in this lecture was plug her book, I take back everything I said. But I guess we’ll never know.
Is that all you got? Protest is rude? As far as arguments go, this merits “C”.
It’s interesting how both sides invoke violations of our 1st amendment rights, reflecting the adaptability of personal perspective. You would argue that unwelcoming hated public figures is a betrayal of their right to speak at a formal engagement, indicative of some nullity of “good hostmanship” in America. Again, as elsewhere, this argument hinges on the assumption that all enjoy the 1st amendment equally, which is not even remotely the case. The very existence of elite public forums where the rich and well connected can be invited to speak is indicative of this. The fact that the economically disadvantaged (of which I am one) have to resort to these kinds of tactics simply to be heard, simply because there is no more effective way for them to be heard, is indicative of this inequality of power. The protest was about reappropriation for the disenfranchised, for those whose trajectories in life will not be taken them to the top of the American food-chain, for the victims of the rapacious greed that our unwelcomed guests aided, abetted, and are themselves representative of. But most importantly, if a small protest of less than 100 people is enough to chase away these figures, than one might suspect that their messages, in becoming a matter of public awareness, run the risk of incriminating them further.
That all you’ve got, Graduate Student? “Is that all you got? Protest is rude? As far as arguments go, this merits “C”.”
As far as arguments go in response to many paragraphed arguments, I give your argument an F. And also, a C for grammar.
To label Condoleeza Rice and Hank Paulson as simply “rich and well connected” is not only a sign of ignorance but of an extreme case of misinformation. Did any of the protestors bother to do a little research before slapping on such a simplistic and obtuse label? Know that neither Paulson nor Rice were given their careers on a silver platter, both individuals worked hard to become accomplished and successful, climbing their way to the top by meritocracy. So that “rich” and “well-connectedness” that you mentioned? That was worked for, not given. Please continue to spew your philosophical angst about the “disenfranchised” and the sweet “reappropriation” that you think you so deserve but know that the root of social inequality is not Condoleeza Rice nor Hank Paulson. Yes, they may have served under an administration that may have more strongly pursued a capitalist agenda rather than a socialist one, but the last time I checked, these agendas require a pre-built foundation to proliferate. That agenda was set a long time ago, as a founding principal of a free-market economy, a core principle and characteristic that defines the success of this country, and has so far worked pretty damn well. Without this fundamental mechanism, the United States as you and I both know it would’ve likely moved in the same direction that was taken by the EU, where staggering debt due to social services and “reappropriation” as you call it is not only crippling local governments, and creating chaos and disorganization across borders and municipalities, but also bringing irreversible damage to the livelihood and stability of citizens across the continent. The US government has spent every second since its inception guaranteeing opportunities to the most Americans possible, and has spent decades providing this country with the fluidity and power necessary to become the wealthiest country in the world with the highest standard of living in the world. Research the implications of what you’re demanding before you go around blaming a former Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury for DOING THEIR JOB and supporting the President (not that I particular agree with the majority of actions mandated by President Bush anyhow).