This came from a good friend of mine up in Washington State. Him and his lovely bride are big supporters of the Cascade Warbirds, thats where I was lucky enough to meet them. He owns and flys a beautiful T-28 but I try not to hold it against him. He also used to fly C-141s but we can't all be perfect. I've taken his name off of it due to the fact that I haven't asked his permission to post it. But, knowing him, he won't mind.
My friends words are in black, the guy's from Udub are in red.
******************************************************
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:05 PM
To: David Hodge
Subject: Students reject honor to WWII hero
Dr. David Hodge
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Universtiy of Washington
Dr. Hodge:
It is with astonishment and disgust when reading the article referring to the minutes of last week's student government meeting at the U.W., where one of our most revered true American heroes, Lt.Col. Gregory "Pappy" Boyington was trashed. The ignorance of these students in understanding what men like Lt.Col. Boyington sacrificed to preserve their freedom to write and to speak freely today is beyond belief! Boyington's upbringing from a struggling family, (with American Indian blood in his veins, no less), through his education, skills and dedication to his job in preserving our basic freedoms that we enjoy today certainly deserves recognition. His record speaks for itself. For an individual to offer his life in defense of his country is one thing, but to go above and beyond the call of duty, as Boyington did, speaks of the best that America has to offer. His duty was to destroy the enemy, and he did it well, and paid a high price for his ensuing capture at the hands of the Japanese. He never was one to seek notoriey, just to do his duty. He was nonetheless rewarded with the highest honor our country can bestow, the Medal of Honor, for his heroism and unflinching devotion to duty. He was just one of many flyboys who selflessly gave of himself to his country.
I feel that it would be appropriate for these students and perhaps yourself to go back in time and read a famous speech given by President Abraham Lincoln after one of the most tragic events in our history, The Battle of Gettysburg. It imparted then, as it does to this day, the dedication and strength of those who come forth to give their all in making the ultimate sacrifice for the preservation of our Nation. I sincerely feel that this imparts, even in today's world, in no better way than I can think of, the direction these students, instructors, and citizens of this great Nation should be going today. Anything less, and I feel they are not fit to partake of all the privileges our nation has to offer. I have included it below:
The Gettysburg Address
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
November 19, 1863
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
No one understands the horror of war better than the soldier. Death is necessary, it is a part of war, of anything worth fighting for. This war, as most do, had many heroes, some unsung and some not, but yet of all who persevered to win this fight, none deserves being disparaged. I question the education these students are getting today. Is it revisionist, and so liberal as to not realize what fate would have befallen our Republic had the enemy prevailed in this conflict? It is an insult of the highest degree, and demands an apology. It also begs the statement: Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
In addition, please do not send me a "canned" apology letter, the same one concerning this incident being sent by you to others. That is the easy way out.
Regards,
(Name Removed),
Lt. Col. USAFR/Retired
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:20 PM
Subject: RE: Students reject honor to WWII hero
Dear Colonel (Name Removed),
Thank you for sending me this note. I can understand your frustration and anger over this reported incident. However, you should know that the report is a very inaccurate representation of what happened during the student meeting. I have included an official summary of the meeting below. I hope, and trust, that you will find this reassuring. Students do sometimes say outrageous things, but the report of this incident misrepresents the goodwill and respect of the vast majority of the student body.
Let me be very clear. We are proud of our veterans and all of the sacrifices that have been made to keep us a strong and free nation. We are very deeply concerned that such a misrepresentation would give any other impression.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Hodge
PS. And I share your admiration of the Gettysburg Address.
It has recently come to our attention that the actions of the ASUW Student Senate last night have been greatly misrepresented to the student body and the general public. As such I wanted to clarify what actually occurred.
The Student Senate exists to create official student opinion by bringing together student representatives from all across campus. The resolution concerning Colonel Boyington (available online at
http://senate.asuw.org/legislation/12/R/R-12-18.html) cited the Colonel's exemplary service record, including the fact that he was awarded the Medal of Honor for service in World War II. The resolution called for the creation of a memorial in his honor. Passage of the resolution would not have necessarily resulted in the creation such a memorial, but would have recommended it to the University of Washington.
The debate within the Senate was fair, balanced, and respectful. Senators representing a diverse array of viewpoints spoke on the resolution, raising numerous points as to the merits and demerits of the resolution.
1.) The ASUW Student Senate declined to support the construction of a
memorial for an individual. This in no way indicates a lack of respect for the individual or the cause, merely that the Senate did not support the construction of a memorial. The Senate weighed factors such as financial viability, the logistics of implementation, which historical points are relevant, and the difficulty in assessing which veterans should be memorialized over others. Questions regarding these factors were not addressed in the legislation itself and thus became points of debate during the meeting.
2.) Senators speak on behalf of the opinions of their constituents.
This legislation has been posted publicly for nearly a month and senators have used that time to discuss the issues with their constituents. There is no way to distill a central argument of the Senate for or against any piece of legislation the Senate discusses. While the vote itself is a yes or no decision, the reasons senators choose to vote in a particular manner vary widely. Therefore, it is inappropriate to represent a decision by the Senate as resulting from any single statement or point-of-view.
3.) No senator speaking in opposition to the resolution suggested that
deaths in war are the equivalent of murder. One senator, in making a motion to remove references to the number of Japanese planes shot down, suggested the focus of the resolution should be on the man's service to his country.
The sponsor of the amendment suggested that death in war was sometimes a "necessary evil" and that the focus of the honor should not be on the necessary evil, but rather on the service. That motion passed overwhelmingly. A further amendment to remove the text of the inscription of the Medal of Honor from the legislation subsequently failed overwhelmingly.
4.) No senator stated that we should not pass the resolution on the
grounds that Colonel Boyington was a "white male." One senator stated that we have many monuments and memorials to white males, but did not suggest this was a reason to not support the resolution.
Throughout the debate in the Student Senate, the tone was very respectful.
If you have any additional questions, please contact:
ASUW President Lee Dunbar (asuwpres@u.washington.edu), Student Senate Chair Alex Kim (asuwssch@u.washington.edu), Student Senate Vice-Chair Erin Shields
(asuwssvc@u.washington.edu) or Director of Operations Karl Smith
(asuwbdop@u.washington.edu)
--
Alex Kim
Student Senate Chair
Associated Students of the University of Washington 206.543.1780 (office)
206.669.9562 (mobile)
http://senate.asuw.org/
=============================
David Hodge
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-3765
206-543-5340 Fax 206-543-5462
Professor, Department of Geography
http://www.artsci.washington.edu
"The principal goal of education in the schools should be creating men and women who are capable of doing new things, not simply repeating what other generations have done; men and women who are creative, inventive and discoverers, who can be critical and verify, and not accept, everything they are offered." Jean Piaget.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Hodge--
You could at least display common courtesy to answer my letter directly and in your own words, instead of sending the same "canned" letter you have sent to several of my friends. You call yourself an institution of higher learning, but you refuse to learn. The tragedy is that the young people that attend your institution are not being educated in a fair, unbiased manner and unfortunately will be left with the legacy of being forced to repeat history.
(Name Removed),
Lt.Col. USAFR/Retired
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Colonel (Name Removed),
I have answered several emails about this today. I used the same general text to make sure that I didn't inadvertently make a mistake in responding. I meant no disrespect by it, quite the contrary. I wanted my message to be clean and clear and consistent. I am disappointed that some have chosen to label our institution this way because of a seriously biased and erroneous report. We work hard to create an environment that encourages divergent views, and will continue to endeavor to do so.
Again, I want to express my utter respect for Colonel Boyington and his distinguished service. And I am certain that I speak for the vast majority of students, faculty, and staff at the University of Washington.
Thank you.
David Hodge
=============================
David Hodge
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-3765
206-543-5340 Fax 206-543-5462
Professor, Department of Geography
http://www.artsci.washington.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
and then it didn't come? I guess it's just the German blood 
