As just about any visitor from Europe or Latin America or Asia these days will tell you, the adage that truth is the first victim of war is demonstrated every hour of every day in this country as Washington chafes at the bit to get on with it while a compliant media act like cheerleaders, and much of the public jumps to salute.
Never mind that Iraq was not seen as a threat six months ago, that no evidence of existing weapons of mass destruction has been found, that the chief WMD threats are the United States and Israel (we’ve already threatened to use nuclear weapons on Iraq), that Saddam Hussein is not suicidal so contemplates attacking no one, and that the last thing he would do would be to assist Osama bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist enemy. For sundry reasons, war Mr. Bush will, nonetheless, have. Like father, like son.
The Internet is one place–serious opinion journals, public protest speeches, and such disinterested discussion as the “Teach In For Peace” Jan. 24 at USM are others–where truth may still be heard against the mad war clamor. May I suggest that USM schedule another teach-in, as quickly as possible, focusing on Iraq, then another focusing on Israel/Palestine where we are bankrolling and defending the worsening repression of Palestinians and placing all Americans at risk of terrorist attack as a consequence?
That said, despite the success of this teach-in and others through the years, USM has something to learn from certain challenges in the course of planning and executing this one, particularly with regard to the obligation to include co-sponsors in decisions, breaches of which created unnecessary difficulties and worse.
Although the program was open to anyone who wanted to participate and a range of perspectives were invited, efforts were made to improperly influence the program by suggestions that the program was biased and slanderous claims that the Veterans for Peace, which was participating, is anti-Semitic. It goes without saying that free speech must be absolutely free of intimidation in the University, but Pax Christi Maine and Peace Action Maine were not involved in determining the response to that intimidation, creating an obstacle to Pax Christi Maine’s and, I was told, Veterans for Peace’s continued participation.
At a meeting Jan. 22, six members of the Organizing Committee, including members from all three sponsoring organizations, unanimously agreed to a final paragraph in a program disclaimer to address that interference in a way that overcame the obstacle. The language, worked out according to the committee’s directive and explicitly approved by four of the six present, read: “Unfortunately, improper efforts were made along the way to influence the shape of the program and to discredit certain participants. We stand by our decision to welcome all who would participate, to the extent possible, and regret that some have not respected our good-faith efforts.”
Instead, the statement was bowdlerized by a USM organizer, unilaterally or in complicity, out of fear that it would attract undue attention, substituting for the first sentence, “The development of this program was not a perfect process” and deleting the second half of the second sentence. As changed, the statement was shorn of its purpose so abrogated the resolution of problems occasioned by the interference, putting USM in bad faith with its co-sponsors. And, of course, the “Organizing Committee” signature to the bowdlerized disclaimer attributed to all what one person alone–or two–had decided the disclaimer would read.
Then, during the program, several USM personnel took it upon themselves to argue that, for the sake of the program, because Pax Christi Maine had reproached one of the individuals who had brought undue pressure on the committee, I should withdraw from the Religious Views panel in order to avoid some unspecified and apparently inexplicable possible disruption, presumably by me. I’ve had several bizarre moments in academe; this ranked high, not to mention being insulting. This rejected proposal, much urged, was, of course, further interference with the program, this time by one of the three teach-in sponsors without involving the other two in its judgment–or Professor George Caffentzis, a senior faculty Organizing Committee member.
I rehearse this history both to share its instructive value with future jointly-sponsored teach-in organizers and as the only way I see left, if belatedly and imperfectly, to accomplish the disclaimer paragraph’s objective. Thank you for your cooperation to that end.