Twin commentaries last week, both unsolicited, set the stage for the Emerald’s generous offer of space for others to react to this week’s University Assembly to deal with pre-emptive war on Iraq. They were valuable because they were at odds with each other.
One, by a student, Todd Pittman, suggested why so many faculty members believe a failure to publicly oppose the war indicates general support for what he feels is an immoral venture. The other, by an off-campus reader (like myself), Scott Austin, claims the Pittman approach reflects an “inherently evil and untrustworthy” aspect of democracy.
However Austin might describe it, that democracy is based on the will of the people, even when that will chooses actions that may be immoral or unjust. If there were a national referendum on the Iraq war issue, I suspect the vote today still might favor it, although by a smaller and smaller margin each day. As a citizen, I’d have to accept that decision, no matter how much I oppose it. That does not mean I’d have to accept it quietly. It also does not mean our faculty must be restricted to silence.
At the heart of democracy is the opportunity for dialogue. Discussions within the University Assembly represent that opportunity, even if the University president chooses to veto its decision, as University President Dave Frohnmayer has indicated he may feel impelled to do.
The president’s interpretation of state guidelines parallels a growing inhibition of dialogue in broader society. It comes from a system of news reporting that increasingly reflects the views of but a tiny segment of the nation: owners of the press and of radio and TV stations. Like Austin’s occasional “untrustworthy” aspect of democracy, freedom of the press must be protected, even though it can be freedom for only the owners of the press to push their sometimes extremist views. As for radio and TV — licensed and regulated by the federal government in the public interest — the number of owners becomes smaller and wealthier as the Federal Communications Commission trashes its mandate, destroying regulations that once prevented monolithic broadcast operations.
So public dialogue is hurting in a nation once dedicated to open exchange of ideas. The only element preventing a complete takeover has been growing use of the Internet. Computer-generated exchanges by citizens have built a worldwide constituency for the idea of freedom of expression. Its most visible achievement was the motivating by e-mail of a global response by many millions who demonstrated against the war on Feb. 15.
Were the demonstrators right, or were they wrong? That’s for the public to decide. But they did have the chance to express themselves on an issue that, universally, strikes deeper than any since the Vietnam War.
That’s what the University and its assembly deserve to have. If the vote is in behalf of a resolution against war, it will be an expression — not of the University — but of a majority of the voting faculty. That is meaningful, veto or not. A university president who is former state attorney general and one-time dean of the law school should be respected for his ability to interpret state regulations. He should not have the power to silence the voice of the majority.