It has been three weeks since my graduate studies have started at the New School, and I have spent some time reflecting on my time in service as well as my undergraduate studies. Upon personal introspection, I have found that throughout my undergraduate studies there was a struggle between two important forces in my persona: the soldier and the scholar. I am also certain that I am not the only one as many returning service members take advantage of the GI Bill and become student-veterans. I often wondered what exactly is that struggle and how other student-veterans reconciled those two, if that divide even exists.
I saw that the main points of contention lie in two areas: pride in service versus intellectual objectivity and ground realities versus the “Ivory Tower.” Maybe there is more and maybe I am imagining some of these things, I don’t claim to have it all figured out but this is what I have found.
I am proud of my service in the US Army. I spent over six years serving the country in good faith and confidence that what I was doing was right and in the interest of the United States of America. But as a soldier, critical analyses of political, economic and sociological theories were not integral requirements for me to conduct my daily tasks and mission. I was not required to be an intellectual; I was required to be functional for the mission. The pride that I have for my service is integrally connected to that functionality. But in academia, the inverse holds true.
In academia, pride and functionality are not necessary to conduct a critical analysis. In some cases it is absent because the scope of intellectual debate is different. At times, when the debate regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan led to criticisms of US foreign policy, military policy and strategy, I remember feeling offended even though it was not directed at me, or my functional performance during my service. The aim of any intellectual debate is to do it with objectivity, and for someone with a personal stake and pride in conducting their mission; it is difficult to not take it personally, because as service members, we carried out that policy. In defense, his then leads to a different sort of argument.
A major accusation against academia tends to be the “Ivory Tower” argument, where intellectual debates are too theoretical and far removed from real life scenarios. In the case of debates on Iraq and Afghanistan, academia lacks perspective on ground realities, which then results in this:
“What do you know? Have you been there?”
I know I have said it before, and I heard it being said time and again from veterans who were both for and against the war. What I realized is that the problem with this argument is two-fold. The first is that this becomes an ad hominem argument, meaning that in order for the opinion to be valid, it is not about discussing and debating WHAT is being said, but WHO is saying it. The second problem is that it fails to understand academia itself.
Academia is a process where academics are not limited to engaging in only theoretical discussions. Intellectual discussions starting in theory eventually moves towards implementation and practice (unless of course we are talking about metaphysics). This process happens within academia and does not preclude it from being grounded firmly in reality. What I learned is that this process is a change in perspectives.
A metaphor for this is imagining that I am a fly sitting on top of a painting. I could explain the details in the brush strokes and the subtle changes in colors and shades, but I could not tell you what the painting is, or about it. To do that, I would have to get to a good distance away from the painting, and then I would realize that it is the Mona Lisa and that it might be DaVinci in drag (or so some people on the Internet claim).
The academic process is the same but starting from afar, and sometimes it is not as crucial to get every single detail, but the pertinent ones that help understand the bigger picture. Additionally, academics are also inclusive of information from those on the ground level. To think that academia does not attempt to get closer to ground realities and is unable to offer some insight is a misperception.
These two areas of contention contribute to the perception that colleges and universities are hostile environments for veterans. It could also be the case that the perception of hostile environments preemptively puts student-veterans on the defensive. While I don’t remember which one applied to me, I do know that reconciling the duality in me as a soldier and a scholar came with the understanding two things.
First, don’t take it personally, because it is not meant to be a personal attack. While there are some students who might blame the soldier for policies they disagree with, these are a small minority. If we take a moment to listen carefully to what is being said in these debates, I can almost guarantee that it is not directed at those who served but about the theory, policy or implementation, not those who carried it out in good faith and confidence in their duties.
Second, welcome disagreement and opposing ideas. There is no person or institution that is perfect. Criticism and alternative ideas force us to face and think about what is not going right, and how to improve. Know that you don’t have to agree on any of the proposed solutions, but know that they are out there.
I have not completely reconciled between the soldier and the scholar. Sometimes I still get annoyed or angry at certain arguments. While the soldier in me is not at peace with the scholar that I am now, it is a binary that I can live with.
Filed under: Veteran Issues, academia, college, education, transition, Veterans
Recent Comments