The flap over Michael Moore's impending visit to Utah Valley State College is not really surprising, I suppose, and the passion of those on campus debating the merits of Moore's work, both pro and con, is to be applauded. Ultimately though, the loud chorus of voices demanding that the college be declared a Moore-free zone is just a little bit disheartening. Many of those opposing Moore's visit complain that he and his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," present an overtly biased view of the Bush administration and of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, one that either has no place on a college campus, or that, at the very least, requires "correction" from the other side of the political spectrum. In short, they couch their opposition to Moore's visit in terms of the need for UVSC and its (courageous) student government to present a fair and balanced assessment of the administration and its conduct in Iraq, a need that will supposedly be met when Sean Hannity makes a pre-emptive, on-campus strike, nine days prior to Moore's scheduled appearance. The notion that UVSC needs to provide a corrective to the imbalanced perspective that Moore brings to the table is both offensive and patently absurd. It is offensive in that it implies that the UVSC student body is populated by so many naive, idiot children, who are incapable of independently evaluating Mr. Moore's remarks. Having taught at UVSC for four years now, I can assure readers that this is not the case. It is true that Moore offers a highly critical, polemical assessment of the Bush administration and its conduct in Iraq. However, it has also become increasingly clear that the Bush administration has been offering its own biased interpretation of the situation in Iraq for many months now - some would argue since long before the invasion began. Conservative mouthpieces for the administration - Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News Network - have been dutifully repeating the administration's Iraq mantra from day one. We now know that the entire U.S. intelligence community has been warning President Bush that, unlike the rosy picture he has been painting for the American people, the situation in Iraq is deteriorating rapidly. Given the political climate in Utah County, it seems reasonable to suggest that someone like Michael Moore would be useful in providing some kind of balance to the one-sided perspective that is offered, daily, by the administration itself, and by the right-wing pundits who are so popular in that particular part of the state. Opposition to Moore's visit has little to do with the need for presenting fair and balanced perspectives on issues of great importance. If it were, Moore's opponents would be obliged to register their disgust with the administration's unfair and unbalanced perspective on Iraq by voting against it in droves this November. I suspect that that will not be the case, however. But this is why the Moore flap is not just unsurprising, but also disheartening. The United States attracts fear and suspicion, as well as admiration, around the world. It is admired - first and foremost, I would argue as a non-citizen born and raised in a foreign country - because it is supposed to be that country that not only tolerates criticism of its government, but actively encourages it as a central duty of each citizen. When you disagree with the policies and direction your government is taking, you must voice your concerns, loudly and publicly - it is, indeed, your duty to do so as a citizen. Whether you agree or disagree with Michael Moore, that is precisely what he is doing. To see a problem with his appearance on a college campus, unescorted by a balancing perspective that tells us that critics of the current government are liars and rogues, is sad and, in fact, un-American. I fear that the truth is that those who oppose Moore's visit are not interested in balanced perspectives on Iraq. They are discomfited by Moore's vehement criticisms of the Bush administration. It's disturbing to them and they would prefer not to hear those views at all, or, at the very least, to be comforted pre-emptively by views that do not challenge their conception of the administration or its conduct in Iraq. It is a palliative "correction" that does not truly serve them or this nation.

---

Pierre Lamarche is an assistant professor in the Department of Philosophy at Utah Valley State College.