On Monday, April 14 the Academic Senate, comprised of UCLA
faculty, passed a resolution condemning the war in Iraq 180 to
7.
In response to Chey Tor’s letter following the event,
“Academic Senate unprofessional” (April 17),
Tor’s reasons that “the action of the Academic
Senate” is “out of line” are ridiculous.
Our country is founded on the principles of peaceful assemblage
and freedom of speech. Tor asks, “Why is it that no other
college has taken a stance?” The University of California
Santa Barbara took a stance on Feb. 24 before the war even
began.
And to say, “How would a professor teaching the physical
sciences have any expert or relevant knowledge behind the political
and public policy-making process of waging war?” to prove why
no other colleges are taking a stance on the war is completely
naive.
There is no correlation between the knowledge of public policy
and a university’s stance on war. Rest assured, faculty at
UCLA have a great knowledge of public policy, as do faculty at
other universities, whether they have taken an official position or
not. Also, there was faculty from public policy in attendance.
Many people (faculty and students alike) in the physical
sciences should be greatly offended by Tor’s sweeping
generalization that physical science professors have no relevant
knowledge, which is completely unfounded.
These faculty members have the right to peacefully assemble and
have freedom of speech to say that they do not support the current
administration’s decision to go to war. And to say,
“that is up for our leaders in Washington to decide”
only promotes the stifling of free speech and furthers a lack of
thought, which are in opposition to the very ideals of our academic
institution, academia at large and democracy as a whole.
What Tor fails to realize is that these professors are not
deciding our foreign policy; they are merely making their voices
and opinions on the subject heard. The number of Americans who
support the war is completely irrelevant to the opinion of these
faculty members. Also note that before the war started, 57 percent
said the United States should get a second UN resolution before
attacking Iraq, and 58 percent said this country does not currently
have enough international support for such an attack.
It is quite probable that these faculty members are not arguing
against Iraqi freedom, as Tor seems to think, but against the idea
that this war was fought to “free Iraqis.” The
administration originally claimed (although the claim itself is in
doubt) that the war was a war on terrorism ““ to find weapons
of mass destruction and to stop Saddam Hussein from harboring
terrorists and providing them with weapons of mass destruction.
The administration decided to switch focus midstream from its
“do-it-ourselves-terrorist-stopping” stance to
“saving the Iraqi people” stance, because it is more
publicly favorable. Of course, seven out of 10 Americans are not
going to argue against freeing oppressed people.
My guess is that the other three out of 10 are not arguing
against Iraqi freedom. Rather, there are many social, moral,
political or other standpoints they may take.
It is interesting to note that Halliburton Co., of which Vice
President Dick Cheney was once CEO, won the contract to put out
oil-well fires in Iraq.
Maybe there should be an investigation into the
administration’s campaign funding, financial and personal
ties with the corporations and the wealthy individuals that will
ultimately benefit from this war.
Cholfin is a second-year geology-paleobiology and political
science student.