This Wednesday the Associated Student Government will vote on a resolution calling on Northwestern to rescind the appointment of retired Lt. Gen. and former ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry as the first executive director of the Buffett Institute. This proposed resolution follows a faculty letter against his appointment, and a discussion at student senate last week. One of the charges levied against his appointment is that the search process was not “normal,” so I will begin by clarifying that I have no problem with scrutinizing the way the appointment was made. Were that the core of the argument presented by the faculty and students, I would not be writing this letter.

Rather, the more substantial arguments made by the resolution’s advocates focus on two things. Firstly, his military background and an associated fear of impartiality and disregard for the humanities. Secondly, they contend that Eikenberry somehow lacks credentials.

First of all, as a veteran, I am aghast that the resolution writers chose to cynically allude to the deaths of civilians in foreign countries which NU community members are from as “damning proof” against Eikenberry. In many of these countries, it is equally true that U.S. soldiers of all genders, religions and races gave their lives during missions to protect local populations. There is always a pressing need to critically examine how U.S. foreign policy promotes or undermines global justice and stability. The military, however, does not command itself — it carries out a policy determined by the executive branch. To deem Eikenberry unsuitable “by association” with the consequences of war is to say that anyone who has ever worked for the government is unsuitable.

Similarly, upon hearing that one of the bill’s authors argued that Eikenberry’s military history “compromises his ability to be unbiased in studying the humanities,” I found myself again outraged.  This statement is nothing less than a slap in the face to members of our community who have served in militaries around the world, as well as to those who intend to serve upon graduation. Does the fact that I once donned a uniform in service of my country diminish my humanity, or my ability to comprehend the world around me? Considered in context, this statement is also plainly false. Minimal research of his positions and statements shows that Eikenberry is not at all shy of swimming against the establishment current.

The anti-Eikenberry faculty and students not only neglected key details about his positions, they also willfully quoted his statements out of context. They reference his speech in the opening of an interview at the Chicago Humanities Festival to argue that he seeks to “instrumentalize” the humanities and social sciences to advance U.S. “soft power.” At face value, this indeed sounds concerning, but only because they fail to mention the two direct examples he provides explaining his intent: providing U.S. funding and expertise for the restoration of Afghani archaeological sites as well as music initiatives for Afghan youth.

They further distort his words about the need to make the humanities more “marketable,” arguing that he neglects their intrinsic worth. It is precisely because he values the humanities that he expresses concern for falling levels of enrollment in these fields. Indeed, in the same interview, Eikenberry says, “It’s also about teaching our younger generation to come to grips with questions of how do they look at life, how do they interpret love, how do they face death. That’s not something that can be taught in science.”

Finally, I wish to address the claim made in the resolution and during the senate meeting that Eikenberry’s lack of a Ph.D. makes him unqualified or even a “non-intellectual” (whatever that means).  Eikenberry’s C.V. includes master’s degrees from Harvard and Stanford, a degree in Chinese history from Nanjing University, and nearly four decades of experience in military and government. He has spent the last several years working at Stanford and publishing in a variety of journals and newspapers.

Though he is not a traditional academic, the Buffett Institute is hardly a traditional academic institute. With a significant focus on global impact, Buffett seeks to provide students with access to global engagement practicum. The job description of executive director specifically requests a candidate with “substantial administrative experience,” “broad professional networks” and “experience … with academe, government and the policy world … internationally as well as domestically.” As an individual who led an embassy staff of over 1,000 civilian professionals while participating in a multibillion dollar reconstruction effort, it is difficult to think of someone with experience comparable to that possessed by Karl Eikenberry. ASG, as the representative of an undergraduate student body that especially craves experience in fields such as global development and global health, would be betraying its constituents by going against his appointment.

Signed,

Alon Schneidman, McCormick junior and political science minor