DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC. The fliers are plastered throughout the University. Professors are making announcements in class, and e-mail lists abound with reminders to their members. Several student leaders have come together to organize a mass "event" to educate students about the United States' interest in Iraq. Although these students should be applauded for attempting to spur dialogue about this very important time in U.S. foreign relations, the name of the event hints at a motive that is altogether different from this commendable end. Organizers seem to be misleading the public as to the nature of this schizophrenic event, and need to be much clearer about the goals of this student gathering.
How the United States deals with Iraq is a much more complicated issue than simply advocating war or peace. There are several ways that war might happen, and for several different reasons. First, there is unilateral intervention by the U.S. military. This would mean that the United States would act alone, without the aid or resources, military or economic, of the world community. This was the center of the heated debate nearly a month ago, when the Senate discussed whether to give the president the authority to use U.S. military force in Iraq, outside the operation of international law and organizations. The vote passed. However, many saw this as an empowerment tool to give President Bush bargaining power with other world leaders in order to coerce them into joining the American effort, i.e. multilateral intervention. This also succeeded, as the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution calling for arms inspectors to return to Iraq for a short duration, else Saddam Hussein face punitive consequences. However, the posters around Grounds bill the event as a "rally for peace." What peace are they talking about?
Perhaps students are articulating a desire for a lack of U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. However, peace is a very vague term. Although the event will have taken place before this column is published, it is billed to include many faculty members and students who will no doubt offer very different perspectives on the role of US intervention. The spectrum ranges from professors to poets, student leaders to civil rights movement heroes. However, all are consistent in their likely advocacy against US military action in some form. This then makes it unclear as to why the event is being publicized as one that facilitates discussion. Offering one side of the debate does not make for an unbiased decision on the part of participants.
Within the e-mail sent out to various student groups, there are several contradictions that may confuse possible attendees as to what the event seeks to achieve. First, the e-mail advocates "calling for peace and sensible policy alternatives to war on Iraq." Okay, so this is going to be an pro-peace rally. Then the e-mail continues, "'Dissent is Patriotic' will bring together a diverse range of professors, students and community members, mainstream and radical, in an effort to deepen our understanding and clarify our thoughts on the issues at hand." This then clouds the issue. Is this an anti-war rally or a teach-in? The latter sentence seems to bill the event as a chance for students to gather to hear what experts in related fields can offer about the subject. A teach-in on intervention is something that the University community will benefit from. A rally for peace is equally commendable. However, using a title for the event that obviously places a heavy spin on what students are supposed to get out of it doesn't broaden debate, it only constricts it.
Without a doubt the students putting the event together are working very hard to offer something that will make a difference in the way students think about our administration's foreign policy decisions. This is to be commended. When directly asked whether the event was a rally for peace, one organizer answered that it was not, but a chance for students who had not made up their minds to come hear a new opinion. The follow-up question was whether organizers hoped that students would come away with stronger hesitations about war. The answer again was ambiguous, responding that the hope was that students would have a chance to hear dialogue about the issue. How unbiased this dialogue will in fact be remains to be seen, but expectations are low.
Although there is nothing wrong with an anti-war or pro-peace rally, should that be what the student organizers believe, there is something wrong with calling this rally something that it isn't. The Iraq question is very complicated and not one that will likely be answered within the coming months or years. Whether armed intervention comes, be it multilateral or unilateral, the United States will be affected by the decision. It is something that students deserve to know about. Just don't tell them that you're going to give them all sides, then tote an idealistic dogma. Such manipulation only hurts responsible dialogue.
(Preston Lloyd's column appears
Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily.He can be reached at plloyd@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
