Faculty members spoke about the University and the potential for war in Iraq at a mediated forum Tuesday night that fostered open discussion but also briefly touched on the issue of whether the University will adopt a formal position advocating or opposing war.
History Professor Daniel Pope, one of five speakers during the two-hour forum, openly stated his beliefs that the University should decry the imminent Middle Eastern war, but University President Dave Frohnmayer said such a response is not within the jurisdiction of the Faculty Senate or the University itself.
“The question is whether or not in an organized commission or forum speaking for and on behalf of the people of the state of Oregon — because we are a state agency — (does) the University (have) that authority?” Frohnmayer said. “I say it does not. The counsel that advises me says it does not.”
Earlier this month, Oregon State University’s Faculty Senate chose to adopt an anti-war stance, and some in the audience attended the forum with the hope of a similar University response.
“Now that OSU passed it, it looks more possible that it will happen here,” senior Terra Cloyes said.
Pope later responded to Frohnmayer’s comments, stating a need to form a stance on the issue because of the significance a war could have on the University community.
“While there may not be many times the University should take a stance on a political issue, I sincerely believe this is one of them,” Pope said.
The forum, which EMU officials estimated was attended by about 500 people, opened with a series of presentations by the five speakers and ended with a 45-minute question-and-answer session. Many of the questions from the audience of faculty, administrators, students and community members were politically charged and the premise of some questions was debatable, making it difficult for the panelists to answer the inquiries.
One member of the audience accused the University of supporting Israel through its business practices while another stated the United States had knowledge prior to the events of Sept. 11 but chose not to act. On one occasion, the panelists chose not to dignify a question with a single response.
The event, sponsored by the University Faculty Senate and ASUO, was noticeably short on student input; four of the five panelists were members of the administration or faculty. ASUO President Rachel Pilliod, who was supposed to attend but could not because of scheduling conflicts, was replaced by ASUO Community Outreach Coordinator Hilary Arakaki.
Arakaki gave a brief opening statement thanking the members of the panel and the audience for taking part in the discussion, and stressed the importance of sharing ideas. Once the presentations ended and questions began filtering in, however, Arakaki chose to let others answer.
Arakaki said she chose to remain quiet because the others were qualified to answer, and also to prevent any implications of an expressed ASUO political ideology.
Although surprised by the low turnout — the EMU Ballroom was expected to be full and a television connection was established for any spillover in 180 PLC — Arakaki said she wasn’t disappointed because the forum was enlightening for those who attended. Similar discussions are expected in the future.

Read also related article:
“Anti-war movement members create petition”