As U.S. and British troops slowly advanced towards Baghdad, some Guilford students and faculty considered a broad range of the reasoning and circumstance behind the current war against Iraq last Monday in what may be becoming a Guilford tradition: the learn-in.
Similar to the college’s response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the learn-in offered faculty thinking about war in terms of just-war theory, the current geopolitical situation, Quakerism, the differing world views of other nations towards America, and peace activism.
In contrast to the Sept. 11- themed learn-in, which came several weeks after the attacks, this presentation served as a response both to the year-long process of the Bush administration’s push towards war, and to the actual fight, only five days underway.
Also, the previous learn-in offered more seminars, in workshop form; this year’s was four panel discussions, attended by a range of 10 to 50 students at each.
The first panel, which addressed religious and philosophical war theory, concerned the question of whether or not this war is seen as just from several perspectives.
Philosophy professor Lisa McLeod, who teaches a course on just-war theory this semester, stated its tenets: deciphering necessity of war, attacking only legitimate targets, keeping the extent of the offense proportional to the objective desired, and others.
“Under this theory, the war in Iraq would not be viewed as just,” said McLeod, who avoided arguing for or against the war outside the terms of the theory.
Max Carter, director of campus ministry, spoke of the role of war in Christian theology, upon which just-war theory is based. Shelini Harris, professor of religious studies, talked about war in the Muslim religion.
A panel called International Perspectives, the largest by far, gave students in America an avenue into the view of the rest of the world upon this country, both before and during President Bush’s Iraq campaign.
Three speakers were foreign language professors, such as German professor Dave Limburg, who spoke of post-Nazi gratitude to America that is quickly fading with Germany’s opposition to the U.S.-led war.
Another, professor of Spanish Sylvia Trelles, spoke of Spanish president Jose Maria Aznar’s support for war in contradiction to Spanish popular opinion against it, and its repercussions.
Also on the panel were international professors of sociology or politics, like Maria Amado, who talked about American intervention and involvement in South America, and its support of several anti-democratic regimes there.
The last discussion, led by sociology professor Verne Davis, repositioned the disparate anti-war movement into one whose approach was specifically pro-peace.
“It was so much more interesting when students were able to ask questions,” said first-year Fedelma McKenna, who opposes the war.
McKenna stated frustration that some panels were poorly facilitated, which led to the occasion of single students dominating discussion with narrow topics, and that the geo-political panel was weighed too heavily towards pro-war arguments.
“It’s frustrating that they were giving one-sided perspectives and that there weren’t opportunities to oppose them,” said sophomore Genna Cohen, who also opposes the war.
However, the approach of that panel, consisting of political science department chair Ken Gilmore, history professor Jeff Vanke, and CCE student and Army reserve soldier John Teague, was initially to discuss the declared or undeclared grounds for going to war, and scenarios for the different sides.
Panelists posed the stated arguments of both those waging and those opposing war, and responded to students’ questions by framing the international discussion, supposedly without adopting a specific argument themselves.
Since most questions were pointedly anti-war, the responses assumed a hypothetical pro-war tone, which led to more debate than discussion, upsetting some in attendance.