Divided by war, a campus under scrutiny

As the U.S. attacks, colleges try to balance patriotism, security, and free speech.

BY AARON LICHTIG

When nationally syndicated columnist John Leo ran an Internet search on college newspapers from his office last week, he found the pervasive liberalism in the pages of Yale publications frightening. The Wall Street Journal did the same and found the patriotism of Yale students reassuring. As the juxtaposition of "Nuke the bastards" and "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" on the message sculpture outside WLH affirms, no consensus of student opinion exists on the Yale campus or at other universities. On Cross Campus and across the nation's campuses, the conception of a college as a marketplace for ideas is being tested as a philosophical debate over the war against terrorism rages.

The Yale campus, among others, has been through war before, but never a war of this nature. On the night of Dec. 8, 1941, Yale students and local residents swarmed the snowy streets of New Haven to hurl patriotic slogans and jingoistic insults at a far-away, but known, adversary. According to Gallup, over 97 percent of their fellow citizens shared their view. On May 1, 1969, about 75 percent of the Yale student body joined 15,000 protesters from all over the nation to protest the treatment of Black Panther Bobby Seale, who was accused of murder, and to protest an unjust war in Vietnam.

But on Sept. 11, 2001, and in the days that followed, confusion, not unanimity, reigned. Some rallied around the flag, some wanted to burn it. Students and professors all over the country took sides, and outside of the ivory tower, America is watching academia closely. "I don't think [a consensus] has developed," President Richard Levin, GRD `74, said. "But we have to make sure all sides are heard."

What is actually going on at Yale and on America's campuses, and why do Americans care so much? The university, America's last bastion of independent inquiry and sponsor of the search for veritas, has always been looked to for what Levin calls "intellectual leadership" when crises occur. Right now, campuses find themselves engaged in an intense internal philosophical debate. The prevailing feelings at America's universities in the aftermath of the attacks have not mirrored public opinion, as they did during World War II and Vietnam. Yale and other universities have come under fire in the national media both for harboring anti-American attitudes and for encouraging mindless flag-waving. Now, Yale finds itself engaged in an intellectual struggle over whether or not our strikes against Afghanistan are just.

LAST WEEK, LEO, A WELL-KNOWN CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST, wrote a scathing editorial berating Yale and the Yale media for what he perceived to be perversely myotatic liberalism. Leo cited both the Herald and the Yale Daily News as supporting the motives of the terrorists. Neil Boortz, a syndicated radio talk show host, also lambasted Yale and the Herald, among others, for their response to the tragedy. The Wall Street Journal took a different tack, congratulating students for their reasoned thought while chastising "graying radical" professors for their overt sympathy for the terrorists.

But are these anti-war views a new development in American academia? John Leo thinks so, though he admits he has not been to Yale's campus. In an interview with the Herald, Leo said, "There didn't seem to be any hand-wringing about what we did to provoke Japan [before Pearl Harbor] even though we set up an embargo that cut off their oil—people could have

argued that. It's a new attitude that has developed in the past 25 years." The case that the United States is anti-Islam, to Leo, is too difficult to make. "We're pouring billions into Muslim and Arab countries to stabilize them...sure it's self interest, but we do it for humanitarian reasons, too, and the left never reveals that," he said. "The chickens are coming home to roost. Now there's the smog of anti-Americanism that's over the campuses."

While much of what Leo is railing against revolves around student bodies, professors, some of whom cut their teeth during the protests and counterprotests of the Vietnam era, have used their newfound status as public intellectuals to shape both student and public opinion.

At a University discussion held just six days after the attack, six panelists, including history professors Paul Kennedy and Abbas Amanat and law school professor Harold Koh, came to a virtual consensus developed behind a liberal view of American culpability. Kennedy set up a counterfactual in which he cast the United States in the role of a union of Muslim nations. Koh said, "We do no honor to our own civilian dead if we kill civilians who are innocent," to enthusiastic applause. "The panelists spoke in ways that were more harmonious than I expected," Dean Richard Brodhead, BR '68, GRD '72, said. But some professors were offended by the discussion's "harmonious" tone. History Professor Donald Kagan and Political Science Professor and Branford College Master Steven Smith wrote editorials in the YDN condemning the views of some of their colleagues. "I wrote because much of their talk was directed against the United States," Smith told the Herald. "Everyone was more concerned with justifying it. I objected to the tone of what was said." In the days after the U.S. strikes, a number of professors wrote editorials agreeing with President George W. Bush's, DC '68, decision to attack.

The prominence of the voices of professors in campus debate does not imply that student activists on both sides have simply passed the buck. A variety of left-wing groups have been strongly, though quietly, opposing the war. The Yale Coalition for Peace (YCP), which has organized meetings, discussions, and rallies has as its mission "opposition to U.S. policy which they consider totally wrong," according to YCP head Sarah Wolf, TD '02. A gathering on Cross Campus on Tues., Oct. 10 drew a crowd of about 50, but was a disappointment to some of the organizers. Other planned events include participation in a march in Hartford on Sat., Oct. 13 and a coalition-building meeting on Wed., Oct. 24.

Some of the strongest opposition to the war is coming from sources outside of the traditional pacifist movement. Fear of escalating bias crimes at home have prompted many to align with the pro-peace forces. "To me, anti-racism and anti-war campaigns really are connected—I think that anything that's really patriotic is generally really racist," Sharmeen Premjee, BK '02, President of the Muslim Students Association, said. At a Wed., Oct. 11 panel sponsored by a variety of Asian, Arab, and Muslim student groups, speakers advocated peace and vigilance in the face of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment that has been plaguing America since the attacks.

Some students urge a cautious approach because they are concerned civil liberties could be violated if excessively nationalistic policies are enacted in the name of Homeland Security. Bills advocating increased waiting periods for foreign students' visas have been introduced and the FBI and INS have reportedly begun requesting university records of foreign students and possibly activist students. "It's a massive targeting of foreigners and a violation of privacy and it's racist," Wolf said. "They're demanding records of students who clearly have no connection to the terrorism."

CLARE CONLY/YH

No formal pro-war group has developed among students, but signs across campus indicate that the coterie of supporters is strong. "I think we had to do something and take a more active stance," said Ewan MacDougall, BR '03, a pro-war student who last summer entered Marine Corps Officer Training. "The past decade has proven the left completely wrong. We've tried limited responses and peaceful means, and it hasn't worked." Many share this opinion, making the challenge faced by anti-war protesters a formidable one. According to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, nearly 30 percent of college graduates and 37 percent of those with annual family incomes over $100,000 know someone involved in the attack.

AS LEO POINTED OUT, YALE IS NOT THE ONLY UNI-
versity struggling to reconcile concerns about patriotism and national security with its encouragement of free expression, merging the best aspects of a University proud of its global scope with one proud of its "for country" motto. Other "liberal" universities are coming to terms with a similar framework. On almost every college campus, there are students with views that span the ideological spectrum.

Ghazi Khankan, the jovial, silver-maned Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations spoke at Yale on Wed., Oct. 10, and has visited many college campuses spoken to a variety of groups. While he agrees with Leo that campuses are heavily radical, he celebrates campus liberalism. "Students on the whole are opposed to the war," he said. "They are more educated and liberal and realize that there is something wrong with America's foreign policy." Even Counting Crows crooner Adam Duritz weighed in on the issue, praising colleges as one of the last bastions of radical thought in America. Berkeley has been the source of anti-American rhetoric that is perhaps borderline offensive, even to the most radical leftists. Daily Californian columnist Russell Bates wrote in an Oct. 8 column, "I wish the peo-ple of Afghanistan victory against the forces of U.S. imperialism."

Berkeley aside, many have found this blanket assessment to be off the mark. The Wall Street Journal editorial spoke of "hordes of students with American flags flying from their bicycles, sticking out of their backpacks, stuck in their pockets, or emblazoned on T-shirts with messages that promise, `We Won't Forget.'"

YOO SUN CHEONG/YH

Still, at America's elite universities, it is difficult to tell who is right. Columbia has had the hardest time discussing different opinions on campus because of its proximity to the World Trade Center site, which is 100 blocks from the school. Despite this, Middle Eastern Language and Cultures professor Nat Jacks has been vocal about his belief that United States foreign policy has contributed to the attack, and renowned history professors Allan Brinkley and Eric Foner have questioned United States involvement in the war effort in the campus newspaper, the Spectator. "Things are weird here because we're so close. Most of the energy put toward this debate has been focused on the relief effort," Michael Mirer '02, the editor-in-chief of the Spectator, said. Public protests at Columbia have generally been small and unobtrusive.

Princeton, long considered to be one of the Ivy League's most conservative institutions, has seen strong reactions from both the hawk and dove camps. The Princeton Peace Network, a once-dormant organization, has revived itself and has held small demonstrations condemning the U.S. military response. After the attacks, Eric Wang '02 formed the Princeton Committee Against Terrorism, one of the Ivy League's only groups that has held a pro-war rally. Still, opinion at Princeton seems to be divided. "On the whole, I think it's averaged out to be very neutral," Dan Stephens '02, editor-in-chief of the Daily Princetonian, said. "People have taken sides."

Sometimes unexpected sides. History professor Sean Wil-entz, a liberal democrat who testified on Clinton's behalf during the impeachment trial, wrote a strongly pro-war column. But some believe that the media has created an illusion of a split populace, when a quiet consensus actually exists. "I think there is still a silent majority that is just that," Michael Chiswick-Patterson '02, a pro-war Princeton student, said. The Afghan Ambassador to the United States, who represents the Northern Alliance government and not the Taliban, is coming to Princeton's campus on Fri., Oct. 12., which is likely to spur more campus dialogue.

AS THE WAR AGAINST THE TALIBAN ENTERS ITS
second week, the formation of a unified campus ideology seems about as unlikely as national critics deciding to ignore Yale. As U.S. involvement in the Middle East increases, the University will continue to encourage both sides to talk, write, speak, and demonstrate. "We need to continue to allow room for dissent, plenty of opportunity for everyone to voice their opinions on the issue," Levin said. The Administration has sponsored panels and a speaker series, Democracy, Security and Justice: Perspectives on the American Future, that led off with Gary Hart, LAW '64.

Some believe that this is not enough, that universities like Yale should seize the mantle of "intellectual leadership" and take a stand, as Kingman Brewster, TD '41, did 30 years ago when he admitted that blacks could not get a fair trial anywhere in America. "Universities should speak up about what they see; we all have a duty to be patriotic," Leo said.

But this is not Brewster's time. The links between the current atmosphere and the Vietnam and World War II situations are tenuous at best. "The great difference between now and then is surely that except for those who feared being drafted, the mood on campus was much more one of anger about government policies. Now it is apprehension," Cynthia Russett, GRD '64, who was at Yale during the Vietnam era, said. "No one had to worry about getting hurt here at home in the Vietnam era." Because of the threat of immediate danger, Yale must temper its loves for both country and ideas. "The flag flies in Beinecke Plaza...Yale has a national home," Brodhead said. "But Yale has even deeper allegiances to free expression and free inquiry."

The Administration realizes the arduous challenges that this 21st-century quandary presents and feels that the world of academia can meet it. "It seems like hypocrisy not to retaliate," Brodhead said. "That's a difficulty of this time. There's a desire not to recoil into narrow-minded chauvinism, but still show solidarity with the thing you are part of. I've been struck by how few people are narrow-minded about this." At Yale and around the country, though, people with opposing views have found some common ground. Amidst all the powerful rhetoric, the anti-war camp realizes that U.S. national security has been threatened and the pro-war groups recognize that the U.S. must think carefully about striking an ill-defined enemy. Even MacDougall, who hopes for a career in the military, took the time to attend the Cross Campus gathering held by the Yale Coalition for Peace. "I disagreed with their arguments, but I favor a humanitarian and economic program along with the bombings," he said. As opinions are evolving on college campuses nationwide, America will be watching.

Suzy Khimm and Cecily Rose contributed to this article.

Front graphic by Gene Smilansky.

Back to News...