I am writing in response to Nina Maja Bergmar '11's column about American universities in the United Arab Emirates ("Education City," Feb. 26). I take issue with her assertion that an American educational experience abroad is somehow "brainwashing" or "imperialism." She asks that the "bearers of democracy ... practice what they preach."
Well, the people of Dubai and Abu Dhabi have spoken: Students choose Education City of their own volition. In case Bergmar did not read The New York Times articles, I would like to clarify that Education City's universities do not -- I repeat, do not -- force young Arabs to attend. Students have to apply to get in.
The American universities -- in Abu Dhabi, at least -- were asked to establish campuses. Some of these schools actually had reservations when deciding to establish these institutions -- hardly the mindset of a greedy imperialist. If teaching UAE residents science and technology courses somehow counts as "brainwashing," "imperialism" or "ensuring hegemony," then I don't know what isn't imperialist.
This stretches the definition of imperialism to the point of absurdity.
Furthermore, if Bergmar had read The Times articles carefully, she would have noted the education system from which some students came: a system where "it was all what the teachers told you, what was in the book," according to Mona Bar Houm, a Palestinian student. Houm continues, "Here you're asked to come up with your personal ideas."
Who, then, is really brainwashing these students? Or does Bergmar believe -- since Houm's teacher was also an Arab -- that an ethnic group cannot brainwash its people? If asking students to think for themselves is an imperialist imposition of American culture, then I heartily endorse it. Critical thinking is not only an essential part of American education, it is an essential part of being a productive and capable citizen, regardless of one's home country.
Assuming that America is promoting self-promoting ideas (the nerve!), one must ask whether America is right to do so. Bergmar suggests not. I say the answer is unequivocally yes.
Just because the United States has more influence than the average state does not mean it's somehow morally wrong to use that power. The superpower is not, by definition, evil.
Bergmar criticizes the assumption that the American education system is the best. What's better (or not as bad, depending on how you want to look at it)?
She talks about supporting "already existing institutions in the region." But, since the tone of her article suggests that the mere presence of Americans is somehow contrary to native self-determination, wouldn't this simply be another form of the very imperialism that Bergmar so dreads?
If one assumes that Bergmar is correct -- that Cornell is part of a government conspiracy to remake the minds of the UAE, that Northwestern University will dilute democracy when it begins offering courses in journalism -- then perhaps we could have a discussion about the merits of American soft power and its efficacy.
