The power of positive thinking

Freedoms redefined by terrorism at U of W

GORDON WARREN

Freedom is one of our most treasured values. We commonly define freedom by the choices we have. Karl Marx believed that freedom could be negative or positive. According to Marx, negative freedom means the lack of forces that prevent an individual from doing whatever they want, while positive freedom is a person’s capacity to determine the best course of action and the existence of opportunities for a person to realize his or her full potential.

While Marx defined freedom in terms of the individual, we recognize that, as individuals, we are part of a society where the choices we make can affect the lives of those around us. Those who have studied Marxism know that Marx equated freedom with empowerment. As individuals, we have the power to create or destroy. Human history has many examples of both. So, while Marx saw negative freedom as a lack of empowerment, we as a society recognize that power used coercively can also prevent individuals from doing what they want. Conversely, positive freedom can be used by individuals to enable others. Therefore, freedom only has value to a society when it is used positively. Negative freedom reduces the quality of life for everyone it affects, as was demonstrated by the terror threat at the University of Winnipeg this September.

Consider the following:

1. A person (or persons) posted a message indicating that he or she was (or they were) about to embark on an extreme exercise of negative freedom (“shoot up the place”) on Sept. 26.

2. As faculty and students learned of the terror threat, many felt the threat to their positive freedoms (to live and study), which resulted in many events being cancelled and a large part of the student body staying away from campus.

Therefore, freedom only has value to a society when it is used positively.

3. The day prior to Sept. 26, Winnipeg police, in co-operation with U of W’s administration and campus security, blocked all but four entrances/exits and installed checkpoints that checked ID and searched incoming people and their belongings. Notice that these are all examples of negative freedom that infringe, to a degree, on the positive freedoms of faculty and staff. These exercises left students and faculty vulnerable to gunfire as they waited outside the four entrances, which is precisely what the security service was trying to avoid.

4. Massive absenteeism reduced the lineups somewhat on Sept. 26, but the campus, as a result of this terror threat, was unable to exercise its positive freedoms and was effectively rendered inoperable. The measures taken by police, security, and administration were inefficient and deemed incapable by most of upholding their positive freedoms. It would seem that U of W is, at present, unable to cope with negative freedoms such as terror threats.

As we all know, violence is on the rise on campuses and in schools. Accelerated living due to rapid social and technological change in our society has increased the potential of both positive and negative freedoms. Failure to realize and effectively manage this increased potential will lead to catastrophe. Virginia Tech., Columbine, Dawson College, and Ecole Polytechnique serve as grim reminders of what can happen when freedom goes unchecked. The U of W terror threat served as a wake-up call and presents an opportunity to apply our awareness of this potential danger to scenarios we will inevitably encounter in the future.

In my opinion, the most cost-effective way to uphold the positive freedoms that students and faculty enjoyed before this terror threat would be to erect fencing with numerous checkpoints equipped with metal detectors at the perimeter of the U of W campus. Security would then be able to identify potential threats at a safe distance from the campus population with minimal infringement on the positive freedoms of the students and faculty. The U of W administration should also consider fortifying the campus with additional surveillance cameras, panic alarms, and extra security staff when required. Security guards should be armed and adequately trained.

Hopefully, institutions of higher learning like the University of Winnipeg will take a proactive approach to upholding their positive freedoms. Reactive measures, as we have seen with this recent incident, are difficult to implement effectively and could easily result in tragedy.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” — George Santayana.

Gordon Warren is a master of divinity candidate at the U of W.





Volume 95 Issue 8	The Official University of Manitoba Students' Newspaper Website	October 03, 2007

Home About Us Advertising Rates Contact Staff Current Issue PDF Employment Letters to the Editor Meet the Staff Online Archives Volunteer Online Classifieds St. Vincent's Academy Diaries	Font Size Respond Email Print-Friendly The power of positive thinking Freedoms redefined by terrorism at U of W GORDON WARREN Freedom is one of our most treasured values. We commonly define freedom by the choices we have. Karl Marx believed that freedom could be negative or positive. According to Marx, negative freedom means the lack of forces that prevent an individual from doing whatever they want, while positive freedom is a person’s capacity to determine the best course of action and the existence of opportunities for a person to realize his or her full potential. While Marx defined freedom in terms of the individual, we recognize that, as individuals, we are part of a society where the choices we make can affect the lives of those around us. Those who have studied Marxism know that Marx equated freedom with empowerment. As individuals, we have the power to create or destroy. Human history has many examples of both. So, while Marx saw negative freedom as a lack of empowerment, we as a society recognize that power used coercively can also prevent individuals from doing what they want. Conversely, positive freedom can be used by individuals to enable others. Therefore, freedom only has value to a society when it is used positively. Negative freedom reduces the quality of life for everyone it affects, as was demonstrated by the terror threat at the University of Winnipeg this September. Consider the following: 1. A person (or persons) posted a message indicating that he or she was (or they were) about to embark on an extreme exercise of negative freedom (“shoot up the place”) on Sept. 26. 2. As faculty and students learned of the terror threat, many felt the threat to their positive freedoms (to live and study), which resulted in many events being cancelled and a large part of the student body staying away from campus. Therefore, freedom only has value to a society when it is used positively. 3. The day prior to Sept. 26, Winnipeg police, in co-operation with U of W’s administration and campus security, blocked all but four entrances/exits and installed checkpoints that checked ID and searched incoming people and their belongings. Notice that these are all examples of negative freedom that infringe, to a degree, on the positive freedoms of faculty and staff. These exercises left students and faculty vulnerable to gunfire as they waited outside the four entrances, which is precisely what the security service was trying to avoid. 4. Massive absenteeism reduced the lineups somewhat on Sept. 26, but the campus, as a result of this terror threat, was unable to exercise its positive freedoms and was effectively rendered inoperable. The measures taken by police, security, and administration were inefficient and deemed incapable by most of upholding their positive freedoms. It would seem that U of W is, at present, unable to cope with negative freedoms such as terror threats. As we all know, violence is on the rise on campuses and in schools. Accelerated living due to rapid social and technological change in our society has increased the potential of both positive and negative freedoms. Failure to realize and effectively manage this increased potential will lead to catastrophe. Virginia Tech., Columbine, Dawson College, and Ecole Polytechnique serve as grim reminders of what can happen when freedom goes unchecked. The U of W terror threat served as a wake-up call and presents an opportunity to apply our awareness of this potential danger to scenarios we will inevitably encounter in the future. In my opinion, the most cost-effective way to uphold the positive freedoms that students and faculty enjoyed before this terror threat would be to erect fencing with numerous checkpoints equipped with metal detectors at the perimeter of the U of W campus. Security would then be able to identify potential threats at a safe distance from the campus population with minimal infringement on the positive freedoms of the students and faculty. The U of W administration should also consider fortifying the campus with additional surveillance cameras, panic alarms, and extra security staff when required. Security guards should be armed and adequately trained. Hopefully, institutions of higher learning like the University of Winnipeg will take a proactive approach to upholding their positive freedoms. Reactive measures, as we have seen with this recent incident, are difficult to implement effectively and could easily result in tragedy. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” — George Santayana. Gordon Warren is a master of divinity candidate at the U of W.


Terms of Use RSS Feeds © Copyright 2008 The Manitoban Newspaper Publications Corporation