At 2:58 p.m., Friday, the University Assembly still had a chance to gather the 1,069 members needed to enact an official, legislatively binding University resolution condemning a U.S.-led war in Iraq. At 3:12 p.m., the possibility of reaching that needed quorum was dead.
Only 538 of the more than 2,000 eligible voting members made an appearance at the meeting. Assembly organizers and University administrators had anticipated a much larger crowd; expected attendance for the meeting led University President Dave Frohnmayer to schedule the event at the three-court basketball area of the Student Recreation Center, a room the fire marshal said could accommodate up to 1,800.
Regardless of the outcome, biology Professor Nathan Tublitz said he was impressed by the number of voting members who did attend the meeting.
“Friday afternoon is a hard time for a meeting,” said Tublitz, Faculty Senate president for 2001-02. “This is a fantastic show out for a very important issue.”

Political science Professor Jane Cramer agreed that the timing of the meeting may have contributed to the small attendance, but she said she didn’t think the meeting’s diminutive attendance illustrated the resolution’s backing.
“We know we have overwhelming support on campus,” Cramer said. “Very few people were against it when we were petitioning. It’s just unfortunate.”
Despite the failure of the assembly to enact legislative authority, voting members in attendance still performed a symbolic vote on an amended resolution — a vote which passed by acclaim. But the vote is not and cannot be considered the official voice of the University, as Frohnmayer pointed out. The vote simply illustrated the informal dissent of University and community members who opposed the Bush administration’s proposed war in Iraq.
Biology Professor Emeritus Frank Stahl said the University community, even without a formal vote, must continue to form a voice of opposition against war in Iraq.
“As I was gathering signatures on the Concerned Faculty (for Peace and Justice) petition for an assembly meeting, I discovered that almost everyone on the voting faculty at the University is opposed to America’s impending invasion of Iraq,” Stahl said. “Some members, however, declined to sign the petition because they thought it inappropriate for the University to take positions on political issues. I respectfully disagree with those fine colleagues. Our University has taken and should continue to take positions on issues that are central to its mission or its survival. … The University must stand opposed to a war of aggression that is threatening to destroy us.”
Of the many assembly members opting to take a position in favor of the amended resolution and a University stance against the war, one lone voice — linguistics and cognitive science Professor Emeritus Tom Givón — spoke against the assembly taking any stance on the war.
While Givón eventually voted to support the symbolic resolution, he warned against ever using the University as an institution to make political statements.
“I’m not going to speak against the resolution because I support it,” Givón said. “I believe as I believed in the ’60s, where I spent six years parading against the war in Vietnam, that our place is not here when we take political positions: Our place is in the street; our place is in the community.
“I think this is damaging. It’s damaging to all the constituencies we serve. It’s damaging to our students because we let them
see that we are more concerned with what to think than how to think. It’s damaging to the people that sign our paychecks, because they told us not to engage in politics here.”
Members of Concerned Faculty for Peace and Justice said they will continue in their efforts to oppose the war through education, formal papers and teach-ins.