Debate and discussion over 'just' war generate questions about free speech

"With generosity of spirit and mutual respect," President Tilghman said at her installation several weeks ago, "we must listen carefully to one another, and speak with our minds and our hearts, guided by the principles we hold dear."

Since Tilghman spoke those words, American and British forces have attacked sites in Afghanistan, domestic authorities have begun to cope with the losses of Sept. 11 and anthrax has infiltrated the nation's postal system.

Some students and faculty fervently support the American military response, while others ardently oppose it. But most students and faculty seem to agree with Tilghman, encouraging open speech and debate on college campuses during a time of war.

"Universities are not places for [the] selfish, privileged, ivory tower elite to escape from the pressing problems of the day. They should be places for hard and self-critical thinking about what matters most to us, all of us," said politics professor Thomas D'Andrea, who called the war "just." "And they should be places for not merely rational reflection and rational deliberation, but for rational display of passion."

Wilson School professor Richard Falk, who said he "provisionally" supports the war effort but has serious concerns about its "tactics," said various points of view need to be considered in war times.

"Discovering effective action within the framework of moral and legal constraints will require debate, reflection and criticism," Falk said in an e-mail. He added that both sides of the debate have certain responsibilities to the community, and the debate should progress in an organized manner.

However, D'Andrea said he hoped those who oppose the war effort would bear in mind why the United States is responding the way it is.

"Though I haven't seen this personally at Princeton, it is difficult to imagine a more depressing spectacle than a group of pampered intellectuals castigating their country, the United States, in forgetfulness of the profound privileges, at the cost of much human life, that she has afforded them and the profound debt they owe her," he said.

Eric Wang '02, a representative of the Princeton Committee against Terrorism, agreed, saying that what the United States is "fighting for is nothing less than the principles of democracy which allow us to freely debate these issues in the first place."

But Curtis Deutsch GS of the Princeton Peace Network warned in an e-mail, "Movements for social justice have been dissenting voices, when they have eventually won mass approval." Deutsch pointed to the role of social dissenters during slavery, the Vietnam War and other times.

Organizations such as PCAT and PPN have formed since Sept. 11 to bring together students who either support or oppose the war effort. Representatives from both organizations say they have been free to undertake activities to promote their causes, but they also have aired some concerns.

Deutsch said PPN "sponsored a peace vigil on the night bombing started and a rally the next day." He also said the organization has received much support on campus.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

However, though he said PPN has taken no official stance on this issue so far, Deutsch criticized the University for being "a little restrictive of free speech." He said the rules "about handing out material and expression of dissenting views at the recent talk by the representative of the North Alliance were quite restrictive."

Deutsch also faulted the University for "erecting free speech pens, in which dissent is confined to a small area by means of a green plastic waist-high fence."

PCAT representatives only had praise for the University.

"The campus has been incredibly supportive . . . President Tilghman set the right tone during her installation address, when she said that the proper role of the academy during the crisis is to be 'the home of free exchange of ideas,'" PCAT member Sam Spector '03 said in an e-mail.

"The University should fund grassroots movements like PCAT and PPN so that we can come to the greater understanding that Tilghman called for," Spector said.

Jennifer Carter '03, also of PCAT, said PCAT has been "astounded by the outpouring of support [the organization] has experienced.

"This nonpartisan cause has united College Republicans and Democrats and faculty like professors Robert George and Sean Wilentz," Carter said in an e-mail.

But PCAT activist Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky '04 said he was disappointed in the actions of some on campus. "Many of our flyers advertising events and advocating our principles have been taken down almost as soon as they were put up," he said.

As the debate continues between the two student organizations, faculty members have also tried to set up discussion forums with various points of view. However, finding a wide range of views is difficult, bioethics professor Peter Singer said.

"On behalf of the Center for Human Values, Stephen Macedo and I organized a forum on the ethics of the U.S. response and invited four expert speakers who I thought would provide a range of views," Singer said in an e-mail. "But they all ended up supporting the bombing of Afghanistan. I'm now trying to organize another event that will bring someone who can mount a good case against current U.S. policy, but I haven't yet found a suitable speaker."

Singer said he opposes the military action.

Some professors said it is important that the debate continues and noted it likely will.

"Certainly, no side in the argument has been shy . . . Political debate is great . . . What's the point of fighting for democracy if we don't practice it?" asked Wilentz in an e-mail.

Falk, hinting at the same sentiment, asserted, "The University needs forums and debates, and it is very important that students realize that the outcome of this struggle will profoundly affect their future."