Dear David Knappenberger,
To the benefit of the collective Wesleyan consciousness, I would like to defend John Chisholm against your petty, personal criticism of his generous (if at times zealously so) nature, because the man himself is much too humble…
You first say that John has “shown no interest” in the affair which you’ve been debating, complete divestment from weapons manufacturers. Shows how little you know. John has been protesting against weapons of all kinds since high school. Perhaps he has slacked off in the past few years, only because John devotes most of his activism energy towards feeding, clothing, sheltering, educating, and creating economic opportunities for AIDS orphans in impoverished rural Kenya.
You ask John what he’s done with the exception of whining ineffectually: “at least [SEWI] had the gumption to come and actually argue their case.” Well, I know that John has recently been busy preparing to help resettle asylum seekers and torture victims in Vermont for the summer, and (no judgment), I know that he would consider attending a WSA meeting a complete waste of his time.
John does complain a lot, to be fair, but he also does a lot to “actually change things,” and, miracle among miracles, he still believes in his own ability to change the world (unlike those WSA members who believe that they can change their probability of getting into law school).
I wouldn’t say that the WSA is naive, like he would. I think you’re all very intelligent, and I’m sure you truly hold the desire to serve your fellow students close at heart. What the fuck is John doing going to your school? He certainly doesn’t belong here with, as you described us, “a bunch of whiny assholes” that you so arduously serve in student government. He belongs at Reed or Evergreen, where he wouldn’t have to spell out his peace-favoring personal values in an oppositional response to investment in weapons.
Leave a Reply