Gabriel Piterberg, a history professor at UCLA, is not opposed
to the war in Iraq because of catchy slogans, hippie culture or
vehement anti-United States rhetoric.
Rather, he is opposed to the war as a matter of carefully
thought-out principles regarding the role of the United States in
the world.
“The principle I’m speaking about is of not taking
the liberty to be the policeman of the world and deciding which
regime or state should or should not be changed, regardless of the
abominable nature of the regime,” he explained.
Piterberg, who will be participating in an anti-war teach-in
today along with three other professors, represents a fraction of
the UCLA faculty that is opposed to U.S. involvement in Iraq. These
faculty members try to offer their students a perspective other
than the anti-Americanism that critics accuse the anti-war movement
of having.
Although some of the faculty may be characterized as anti-war,
they bring different opinions and reasons for their opposition into
the mix.
Piterberg says there are generally two types of opinions among
anti-war faculty: one which opposes the war as a matter of a
technicality and one which opposes the war as a matter of
principle.
“The formal view implies that had these things been done
according to the Constitution, according to U.N. approval, then the
actual war would have been OK,” he said. “There’s
another camp that thinks, no matter the procedure, it’s an
unacceptable act of aggression.”
Piterberg, however, added that these two types of opinions did
not by any means represent a “split” in the anti-war
movement and that, so far, the division hasn’t come up.
Joyce Appleby, a professor emeritus of history at UCLA, said she
was opposed to the war on the grounds that Bush did not go to
Congress for a formal declaration of war and thus preemptively
silenced a Congressional debate on the matter.
“I feel we are silently amending the Constitution by
ignoring this,” she said. “The Cold War lasted so long
that most people don’t know about Congress’ power to
declare war.”
Appleby agrees there are different sides to the anti-war
movement, but she feels there are more than just two.
According to her, some professors who are experts in the Middle
East oppose war because of their knowledge of the region, while
others have little confidence in Bush’s lack of foreign
policy experience.
One of the most noticeable ways faculty members have voiced
their opposition to war occurred Monday when the Academic Senate
voted 180 to 7 to oppose the war in Iraq. This move, despite the
controversy surrounding it, demonstrates the faculty’s
involvement and interest in the issue.
Critics of the vote have complained that faculty shouldn’t
be focusing on issues such as war when there are more pressing
problems with student fees and budget cuts at hand.
They also say that the turnout of 200 faculty members does not
speak for the roughly 3,000 members of the Academic Senate.
However, Clifford Brunk, vice-chair of the senate, said the
turnout for the Monday vote had been unusually large.
“Our Academic Senate meetings normally don’t garner
more than 100 or 150 people in general,” he said.
The interest faculty members have displayed on the issue of war
is not by any means unusual. In the past, faculty members have
played the role of leaders and catalysts in protest movements.
“Faculty in general have always been active participants
in public debate. That’s one of the qualities of advanced
democracies and a civil society,” said Bill Roy, a sociology
professor at UCLA. “I think faculty are very important, not
only as experts in particular fields but also as
citizens.”
Roy said how quickly anti-war faculty will mobilize in the
future depends on what course of action the United States embarks
on after wrapping up the war in Iraq.
“Anti-war movements are reactive. … If the government
continues with another preemptive strike, it will be easier (for
them to mobilize) this time because a lot of the networking is
already in place,” he said.
“If the government becomes belligerent to Syria or Iran
and threatened a preemptive strike, I think you would find faculty
responding more quickly this time.”
Appleby said it was important to note that the diversity of
opinion was not restricted to just the anti-war movement.
“The people who are for the war ““ I think there are
many different reasons there too,” she said.
“It’s a very rich array of opinions on both sides,
which is good.”