After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Eastern’s administration encouraged teachers to talk about the events in their classrooms. Some students, however, have objected to one professor’s discussion of the subject.

Richard Swartzbaugh teaches “People and Cultures of Africa,” an anthropology course, on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 2-3 p.m.

One of the students in that class, Pat Curran, a senior journalism major, wrote a letter to The Daily Eastern News stating that Swartzbaugh commented on the events in a way that was inappropriate and unbecoming of a college professor. Curran went as far as saying that Swartzbaugh’s remarks could be considered “anti-American.”

Two other students in the class, who wished to remain anonymous in order to protect their grades in the course, confirmed that they thought statements Swartzbaugh made were inappropriate.

In addition, Swartzbaugh indicated that another student complained to the department chair.

Anthropology/Sociology Department Chair Gary Foster declined to comment on whether a complaint had been made, stating that the situation is a “personnel matter.”

“I had been made obliquely aware of the situation two weeks ago and had discussed the situation with Dr. Swartzbaugh,” he said. “However, to the extent that this is, or has the potential to be, a personnel matter, I simply would not be able to offer further comment.”

Foster also said he could not comment on whether the situation would involve discussion with Dean of the College of Sciences Mary Anne Hanner or Blair Lord, provost and vice president for academic affairs.

Curran said Swartzbaugh indicated that President George Bush and the Red Cross were behind the attacks, or at least had not attempted to stop them.

“He said it in front of class and I said to him, `Are you trying to tell me that the Red Cross and George Bush planned this attack on the United States and it was their fault?’ and he said, `Yes,'” Curran said. “So, I mean, whether he was trying to make his point and he said it sarcastically or not, I asked him straight out about it and he said, `Yeah.'”

Swartzbaugh said he doesn’t feel that way.

“I don’t feel that the attack was planned by George Bush or the Red Cross, but I do think both profited from it, along with many, many other people who come out of the woodwork to take advantage of this sort of situation,” Swartzbaugh said.

Curran doesn’t think that message came across clearly during class discussion.

“You see, that may have been his point. Maybe he was just saying it sarcastically, but maybe he didn’t realize that’s what he said,” Curran said. “I was just assuming that he had to have been, because that it was like the most ridiculous statement. That’s why I asked him about it and he said, `Yes.’ I couldn’t believe what he was saying.”

Swartzbaugh said that when discussing the attacks, “there are two areas.”

“One is the human and humanitarian question and the whole question of human suffering. The other is the political question, and these two have to be separated.”

“I do think the Arabs and the Palestinians, in particular, have legitimate political concerns and the United States has been frequently a heavy-handed aggressor,” he said.

Swartzbaugh said the issue of justice was not a clear one, but that the United States’ past actions made the attack predictable.

“I don’t see that there is clear justice or injustice in what has happened recently on either side of the conflict. What I do think is that what happened in New York, aside from the question of justice or injustice, was predictable,” he said. “Palestinians have been deprived of their homeland. The United States and England were parties to that and it was predictable that sooner or later they would reach our shore to make that point clear.”

Curran said that, during class, Swartzbaugh said actions the United States has taken to preserve its oil interests provoked the attacks.

Curran said Swartzbaugh said, “`If we are involved, we should expect some sort of retaliation to come.’ I don’t think he said we expected this – but maybe higher oil prices.”

Curran said the class discussion progressed toward the idea of placing people of Arab descent in the United States in internment camps and that Swartzbaugh expressed that he would support the practice if necessary.

The two students who wished to remain anonymous confirmed the discussion, saying that Swartzbaugh said, “If that’s what it takes.”

Swartzbaugh said he is in favor of profiling at airports, but not setting up internment camps.

“I said if the United States is serious about stopping terrorism on the planes, anybody who profiles like the people they’re looking for should be questioned,” Swartzbaugh said.”The airports do this now anyway. They do profile people now anyway.”

Curran doesn’t remember the class discussion on Sept. 17 going that way.

“He never talked about profiling,” Curran said. “He was talking about stopping all Arabs from doing this, and I was like, `Well, how are you going to do that?’ And I can’t remember exactly what he said, but I said to him, `Well, do you mean that we should take every Arab in this country and put them in a camp like what they did to the Japanese in World War II?’ and he said, `Yeah, I think that’s a great idea.’

“And I said, `Are you kidding? You’re German, right?’ and he said, `Yeah,’ and I said, `What about in WWII if we took your whole family, you and your family, and put them in these camps, you know, to seclude you, because, you know, Hitler was German and who knows what you’re going to do?’ And he said, `Yeah, that’s another good thought.’

“And I said to him `I don’t believe that for a second. I think you’re lying to us and I don’t think that you would say that. You might say that now, but I don’t think you would say that if someone was taking you and your family away and putting them in one of these camps.’ And he was like `Well, if that’s how it had to be.’

“I think it’s just him saying stuff, and then when someone calls him out on it, he doesn’t want to go back and recant the statement, so he just keeps going.”

The two students who wished to remain anonymous spoke of another class period in which Swartzbaugh drew two big buildings on the chalkboard and then drew a target.

Swartzbaugh confirmed that he did draw the buildings and then a target.

“I think they were architectural mistakes and they were extremely ugly. They were a kind of statement of purely abstract economic and political motives,” Swartzbaugh said of the World Trade Center’s two towers. “They’re very prominent and ugly. It’s sad that people even have to go up into these buildings, let alone sit as a target for inevitable terrorist attacks.”

Swartzbaugh also said that there are parallels between the terrorist attacks and the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

“I think the people were sacrificial lambs to the political agenda of the United States and there’s some evidence that the sailors on the ships in Pearl Harbor were set up by the United States government to draw the United States into WWII with Japan,” he said.

It’s hard to know what type of class discussion to expect when you go to Swartzbaugh’s class, said one of the students who wished to remain anonymous.

“You really never know what to expect,” the student said. “Half the time I was just sitting there thinking, `Are you kidding me?'”

Swartzbaugh said he was told that professors could discuss the attacks in class.

“There was no question regarding the appropriateness of the subject, even though the subject was not related to anthropology,” he said.

Curran said he was in favor of discussing the subject, but that Swartzbaugh may have crossed the line.

“I was all for discussing it, but I just though it was inappropriate at that time to be making comments like that to the class when it was less than a week after this had happened,” he said. “People were still hoping for survivors and at this point there’s still 5,000 people missing, presumably dead, and he’s going and talking about how we deserve this and we should have expected it and it was our fault and our president knew about it – he didn’t do anything to stop it.”

“I don’t have a problem with him talking about it- I was all for it, but I just thought that those comments were really inappropriate for that time.”

Swartzbaugh said the class discussion was conducted in an appropriate way and he was not aware that any students were angered.

“I said nothing to incite anyone to violence. My class is conducted in a thoroughly, orderly, and serious way, and I thought that the comments of the students were good,” he said. “I expected them to disagree with me. They did disagree with me. At the time, I did not think anyone was angry.”

Curran disagreed. He said that during the class discussion one student exited the class.

“One girl got up and walked out in the middle of it,” he said.

Curran said that he thought Swartzbaugh’s comments were particularly inappropriate less than a week after the attacks.

“It was a time when America was uniting, the whole country was getting together and rallying behind this, and I’m in class with this guy and he’s giving this anti-American speech about how it was all our fault and we deserved it,” Curran said. “Even if that was really his opinion, I don’t think that he should have shared it then. If he wanted to wait two weeks (or) three weeks, and then share, I think that would have been appropriate.”

Swartzbaugh said that he doesn’t think his opinion was fairly represented in Curran’s letter to the editor.

“I do feel that I was misquoted on several points in the letter at hand and to my department chairman,” he said. “Having said that, I do not feel that I have to apologize to anyone for anything I’ve said and I will not apologize.”

Editor’s note: This is the letter to the editor written by Pat Curran.

I realize that colleges and universities are the prototype marketplace of ideas, opinions and theories, but some should not be tolerated. Anti-Americanism spoken from a professor’s mouth during these tragic days is not only uncalled for, but should not be tolerated.

I can understand some Americans having sympathy for Arabic people who had no part in the bombings, but to suggest they are the victims only shows the ignorance of the speaker.

I was stunned to hear anthropology professor Richard Swartzbaugh say during Monday’s (Sept. 17) class that this type of assault is good for the U.S. because it boosts morale. When I thought I had heard it all, I was told the bombings were probably planned by President George W. Bush and the Red Cross, or at least purposely not stopped. For, according to Swartzbaugh, both stand to gain immensely from this attack.

One idea to eliminate the possibility of another attack, which was condoned by Swartzbaugh, is herd all of the Arabs in the U.S. into camps like was done to the Japanese in World War II. It seems as if this train of thought is the root of problems that escalate into terrorist attacks.

I would expect this type of argument from an uneducated person shut off from all media reports, but not in a college classroom.

I came to Eastern to receive an education from professors who are supposed ot be able to instill knowledge in me, not make a mockery of the U.S. and the idea of higher learning institutes.

I feel that Eastern should refund the portion of my tuition that paid for Monday’s class. I certainly did not pay tuition to hear anti-American sentiments forced upon me during this time of healing and recover.

Pat Curran,

Senior journalism major