EDITH KURZWEIL 9
She went on to remind us that Osama bin Laden's family is one of the
richest in Saudi Arabia, if not the world, and that linking poverty to ter–
rorism is a specious and dangerous argument as well as "an insult to all
poor people who struggle and often sllcceed admirably in making some–
thing of themselves. "
I would not presume to question Wolfensohn's competence in world
economics and finances. But by linking his typically left-liberal argu–
ment about poverty to the advent of a previously unimaginable interna–
tional terrorism-which the entire world perceives as a danger to
liberty, freedom, and democratic life-he is unreflectingly perpetuating
the political naivite Americans are known for on the European conti–
nent. (I am not saying that we ought not to send food to Afghanistan,
only that terrorism by an organization of fanatics is not caused by
poverty.) "Ultimately, we can no longer be guided by our idealism," I
was told by a (leftist) French friend. Upon my departure, I found
Charles de Gaulle airport protected by armed militia, had to pass
through a number of checkpoints guarded by police, and was frisked.
Under the circumstances, I felt relieved rather than imposed upon.
On balance, I learned more about Islam in that week than I could
have had I immersed myself in the
New York Times .
For
Le Monde
pays
a bit less attention to so-called human-interest stories and much more to
supplying its readers with substantive, detailed background information
about the subject at hand. Since we all understand too little about the
Muslim world, and tend to judge the rest of the globe in our own indi–
vidually and therapeutically oriented way-regardless of personal,
political biases-I once again reflected on how much better we might be
able to face terrorist threats had our students been taught geography,
history, and foreign languages rather than self-serving notions of "mul–
ticulturalism" and "diversity."
-October
20, 200I
Postscript:
My forebodings were confirmed, once again, when I read
Emily Eakins's "On the Lookout for Patriotic Incorrectness," in the
New York Times
(IIi24/or).
The title itself, which builds on the leftist
credo that patriotism is bad, extrapolates from academic squabbles that
mindlessly further the "political correctness" that muzzles the free
speech of its opponents under the pretext of protecting minorities who,
themselves, often are harmed by their professors' (unavowed) political
agenda. Indeed, Eakins ignores the fact that if faculty had taught about
Western civilization-including all of the Right/Left controversies-our
students, instead of resorting to "chants at campus peace rallies and
