Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
Email: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Friday, February 28,2003
—— — Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Editor
Pat Payne
Editorial
Pro or con, you
should attend
the Assembly
At 3 p.m. today, the University Assembly will meet in
the Student Recreation Center to possibly vote on a res
olution that “opposes the U.S. engagement in war in Iraq
at this time.” If you’ve read this paper in the past few
months, you might have seen just how heated the debate
has become.
The controversy has elicited strong reactions from
some community members, lobbying actively for or
against the assembly resolution on the streets and in the
Emerald, but it has elicited almost as strong apathy from
others. This last position worries us.
No matter your position on the resolution, attend the
assembly meeting. Let there be quorum and a discus
sion. Students are invited — they still have a voice. If you
believe that the resolution is a done deal and your voice
will neither help nor harm its chances, do we really need
to remind you that important decisions in world history
have sometimes hinged on a single vote?
We urge you to make your viewpoint heard by the
campus community this afternoon.
This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial
board. Responses can be sent to letters @dailyemerald.com.
Letters to the editor
Universities don’t dismiss opposition
Steve Baggs’ political cartoon of Feb. 26 rang a bell with me. It
shows a panel labeled “University Assembly” patronizing a
peanut gallery which they judge “way too stupid” to have an in
formed opinion on U.S. foreign policy.
But in fact, the cartoon panel reminds me more of the Bush
administration than of the assembly. To judge by official re
sponses to peace protests, Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice and
Rumsfeld think that those who disagree with them are ignorant,
stupid, evil, cowardly, or wrong - either not understanding the
threat that Saddam Hussein poses, or supporting it.
Universities aren’t in the business of making such simplistic
dismissals. We argue, question, subject hypotheses to experi
ment, disagree and advance knowledge through debate. The
resolution opposing the war has been under discussion for
three months now; those sponsoring it assume that people do
have an informed opinion, and are ready to express it in a vote.
A vote on the resolution is not an order to everyone on cam
pus to agree with what the resolution states, or get out or shut
up. As in any election, no matter which side wins, the other side
still has its own opinions and positions.
How ironic, though, that we who oppose a war pressed upon
us by an administration elected by a minority, should be con
strued as arrogantly imposing our views when we disagree with
the party in power.
Gina Psaki
professor
romance languages
Is America a republic or an empire?
The pending resolution against an invasion of Iraq will not si
lence the voice of “pro-war” students, faculty or staff on the
University campus because the resolution does not take one
side of a two-sided debate. Rather, the resolution opposes an in
vasion of Iraq “at this time.”
The Bush administration has not made the case for war, and
until it does, it is the responsibility of the citizenry, including
public institutions, to hold our commander in chief account
able to the people. President George W. Bush told Americans
in his State of the Union address that the war was brought to us
on Sept. 11, 2001, but he has been unable as of yet to connect
Saddam Hussein to the attacks.
None of the hijackers came from Iraq, and Saddam and
Osama Bin Laden are ideological enemies. However, because
Bush seems to have no “smoking gun” that would put this de
bate to rest, and has replaced evidence and logic with fear and
misinformation, the University has the obligation to sound the
alarm and reveal that the emperor has no clothes.
The American public must ask itself — are we a republic or
an empire? Are we willing to let one man lead us into a pre
emptive war that could further endanger Americans and irrev
ocably tarnish America’s image abroad because he “thinks”
Hussein ’’might” someday pose a threat to the United States?
At 3 p.m. today, the University Assembly will have the
Turn to Letters, page 3
X TOLD YOU WE SHOULD
. HAVE RAKED TAXES %
HEY BUD, I AIN'T WASTING MY
MONEY OH YOU* BE HA UP .
The wills of the majorities
And we’re back to 1970. Back then, as
the Vietnam War — a war we genuinely
had no business being in — was gearing
to its explosive anticlimax, thousands of
students, faculty and administrators
packed McArthur Court to hear the Uni
versity Assembly vote on and pass a reso
lution condemning
the war. At 3 p.m.
today, the assembly
meets again to vote
on a resolution con
demning “the U.S.
engagement in war
in Iraq at this time.”
I’ve said before
that I support a war
against Saddam
Hussein, but I do not
relish it. Having said
that, neither side
has totally swayed
me to believing that no war is necessary or
that this immediate moment is the right
time. I have also, ashamedly, felt the cold
grip of apathy claw at me more and more.
Every time I see philippics like “Bush =
Hitler” or watch as the president seems
more and more set on making a war a fait
accompli immediately, I feel more and
more enervated.
Rational debate is being crowded out by
the shouting of handy anti-war slogans and
Pat
Payne
The return of
Captain Sensible
an increasing chorus of, “Bomb him now,
bomb him now.” This is one reason why
the assembly’s meeting gives me some
hope that something of a reasoned discus
sion can be had, if only for an afternoon.
I have to admit though, in a way, I re
sent the idea of the resolution. I’ve
watched a group of well-meaning faculty
go from one campus body to another and
be rebuffed, only to keep pressing through
with it. On the one hand, it looks like they
are hellbent on getting this resolution
passed^ no matter what. To me, it does
seem quite a lot like this group of profes
sors and anti-war students are trying to
press their view of how the world should
run on everyone else.
And, since these are the same profes
sors we deal with in class, I could reason:
What if, given the horror stories passed
around about professors trying to push
their own political views on their stu
dents, they tr>^ to use the resolution as
“carte blanche” to punish pro-war stu
dents who speak out?
But then, I just have to stop and remind
myself that every four years, someone
gets a viewpoint rammed down his or her
throat by the majority. That’s how this
country works. For eight years, the De
mocrats were doing the ramming. Now,
it’s the Republicans’ turn. It doesn’t mean
that those who are in the minority have to
suddenly come into harmony with the
majority’s ideas — hell, if that were true,
there probably wouldn’t be a resolution
before the assembly.
And I’m fine with this. I may not agree
with either party’s viewpoint in its entirety,
but the party in power usually has the
backing of the majority. I feel the same
about the resolution. I don’t agree with the
University having a stance on a war that
hasn’t even started, and I’m not sure that a
resolution is all that useful — President
George W. Bush isn’t going to stop the war
just because the University Assembly says
it’s against it — but I will respect the deci
sion. I do believe the assembly has the right
to take on any subject it wishes.
However, if the resolution passes today,
I hope the assembly recognizes it for what
it is; the will of the University’s largest leg
islative body. It is assuredly not the will of
the University as a whole. Should the res
olution pass, remember that there are still
some of us who are not opposed to war
with Iraq, and respect those voices.
To paraphrase assembly members
themselves: This should be the beginning
of a discussion, not its end.
Contact the columnist
at patpayne@dailyemerald.com.
His views do not necessarily represent those
of the Emerald.
Justification for Iraq war specious
Guest commentary
Professor Daniel Pope and Bo Adan ex
pressed concern (ODE, Feb. 24) that war
is “the enemy of the constitutional free
doms of speech, assembly and associa
tion.” It’s true that war has traditionally
jeopardized these rights — temporarily.
They tend to be put back in place after
our conflicts have ended. However, this
fact does not mean that war should never
be an option. A threat to the security of
the United States and its people presents
a much greater enemy to our Constitu
tion than any war we’ve ever fought, let
alone started.
That being said, I am against this war.
I do not feel that Iraq is a threat to the
United States. Even long-time enemy
and next-door neighbor Iran feels that
U.N. inspections are all that is necessary.
With inspections teams on the ground in
Iraq, I find it hard to believe that Sad
dam Hussein can continue to manufac
ture his weapons of mass destruction. No
other country on Earth is currently un
der a finer microscope. Additionally, no
one seems to be able to come up with
proof that Saddam’s regime has connec
tions with al-Qaida. The White House
tried to convince us differently a few
weeks ago when the newest tape from
Osama bin Laden was released. Howev
er, nowhere in the transcripts of the tape
did bin Laden claim to be working with
Saddam. In fact, the irony is that the
people he claims al-Qaida should sup
port are the Muslim masses of Iraq, the
very same masses we claim to support in
our invasion rationale.
Lastly, I would say to the University
Assembly: Do not vote in favor of this
resolution. Do not vote in favor of any
resolution regarding the war — whether
for or against — as it is not your place. It
is not the place of a University to make a
stand for or against national policy. This
University is supposed to be a place for
the free exchange of ideas, but when the
institution itself takes political sides, that
exchange is stifled.
It is simply wrong for the University it
self to take sides in this debate.
Andrew McQuade is a graduate student
in the business school.