Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: October 23, 2001
Latest Update: October 23, 2001
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu
Olivier Urbain, Soka University

Anthrax and Warnings of Threat

Copyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata and Individual Authors: October 2001.
"Fair use" encouraged.

On Tuesday, October 23, 2001, Kara Cain wrote:

Subject: affirmative duty!!!
Measure of Learning: Regarding Chris's questions on anthrax:

Jeanne, you said that affirmative duty would not apply in informing the students and faculty of gas masks being used in administrative offices. President Lyons, in this situation, would not have to inform us of this. With the event on September 11th, it's a valid question to ask, would the university, under affirmative duty, be obligated to inform the faculty, staff, and students, if threatening calls or threats were made to the school? I am a little afraid of our lack of knowledge. On the day of the 11th, class was still going on, even though the university was instructed to close. If threats were to be made to the University, how would we know that we would be informed expediently? Is the university so colonized that they would allow us to stay in class while threats are being posed to the university? HELP!

Kara Cain

On Tuesday, October 23, 2001, jeanne responded:

Good question, Kara. First, let me reiterate the meaning of affirmative duty. Very little of our law is written affirmatively. Most often the law tells us what we must NOT do. An affirmative duty does not generally exist except when there is a special relationship, and that special relationship can be found in parent/child, teacher/child, babysitter/child, caretaker/person being cared for, policeman after assurance has been given that the policeman has taken charge, etc.

Because the threat of anthrax is so unprecedented, the President of the University would not be presumed to have an affirmative duty to inform all of us about threats. Part of the reason for that is that the government and the legislature are still trying to cope with the question of whether such notice would do more harm than good by creating panic. These are judgment calls. The Center for Disease Control and the government made the wrong call in the case of the two postal workers who have died of anthrax. This is a good example of an instance in which we are going to have to tolerate some ambiguity. It is also a wake-up call for us to sharpen our critical thinking skills so that we can make more responsible decisions for ourselves. And it's a wake-up call to us that we need to discuss these issues in a public forum. Awareness, preparation, and access to information help to allay the fear of the unknown.

One reasonable response to the situation is to ask the President for some confirmatiion of how and when we will be informed as to any local threats. We can ask for some Crisis Preparation. I am passing this file on to Dean Selase Williams with our request for such preparation.

By the way, concepts for conceptual linking on this issue:

• Affirmative duty - no law requiring notice, especially when we're not sure what effect such notice would have.
• Tolerance of ambiguity - our discomfort with "not knowing."
• Terrorism - definition of extension of harm to non-combatants. Re: Ethics of Terrorism and Revolution PSN posting by Michael I. Lichter. 23 October 2001.
• Colonized - definition in terms of status hierarchy and assumption that some members have no say in decision-making. Expected to obey blindly those in authority.
• Public Intellectual - Edward Said's definition of public intellectual as one who continuance to defy the dominant discourse and to ask pointed questions about the wisdom of the normative expectations at play.

love and peace, jeanne

---

---