Though waged thousands of miles away, the war in Iraq did not
leave UCLA untouched. Even before the first air strikes, many
students protested against the war, while others demonstrated in
support of President Bush and U.S. troops.
The war fueled debates along Bruin Walk and sparked rallies on
campus and around Los Angeles. Though the subject aroused powerful
emotions on campus, its effects on teaching at the university were
often felt more strongly outside the lecture halls.
Out of the classroom, faculty members, many of whom opposed the
war, were active in teach-ins and in the campus Academic Senate.
While faculty activities that could be classified as pro-war were
rare, special courses and panels were held to bring debate onto
campus.
One of the most visible ways faculty members involved themselves
in the war came in mid-April, when the Academic Senate voted,
nearly a month after fighting began, to oppose the war.
One of the faculty members who wrote the anti-war resolution,
sociology professor Maurice Zeitlin, said he believes the American
public is not adequately informed on Washington’s foreign
policy.
The war presented a problem to professors in determining what
their responsibilities as faculty members are, he added.
The resolution, which addressed the controversy of the war,
became controversial itself, angering many who supported the
president and military effort.
Clifford Brunk, vice chairman of the UCLA Academic Senate, said
the resolution, which was approved “quite late,” had
its largest impact outside UCLA, especially among people who
disagreed with the Senate’s vote.
The resolution was not the only way Zeitlin addressed the war as
a professor. He also incorporated it into his coursework when he
thought it was relevant.
For example, during a lesson on counterfactual reasoning, which
requires students to imagine likely scenarios if important
conditions in real life change, Zeitlin asked his students to
speculate what would happen if the United States makes
unilateralism and pre-emption foundations of its foreign
policy.
History professor Gabriel Piterberg, who participated in two
anti-war teach-ins, said they provided a better format for
professors to engage in contentious topics.
“It’s controversial to deal with these issues in
class. These forums are designed especially for this
purpose,” he said.
Not all activity on campus was based on opposition to the war.
In early April, an event billed as a “pro-liberation”
teach-in presented cases in favor of invading Iraq. Though no UCLA
faculty were panel members, speakers included L. Paul Bremer, who
is now the top civilian administrator in Iraq.
In March, UCLA hosted two panel discussions to bring expert
debate on Iraq and the North Korean crisis to campus. The Iraq
discussion featured arguments opposing and favoring intervention,
and the North Korea event included analysis from several scholars,
including UCLA Chancellor Albert Carnesale, who is a nuclear
security expert.
During spring quarter, the war and related issues became the
focus of an honors class created specifically to bring foreign
policy debates into the classroom.
“The class was designed to show the changes and processes
that have occurred in American foreign policy since 9-11,”
said political science professor Steven Spiegel, who teaches the
course with political science professor Geoffrey Garrett.
The instructors hoped the class, which featured weekly guest
lectures and was open to the general public, would inform students
and others not majoring in political science or related
subjects.
“What we designed is a class with a public lecture
component to fit people who may not have a very clear
background,” Spiegel said.
However, the war was not a pervasive issue in many classes that
did not focus on political or social issues. One cause cited for
this is the short duration of the conflict.
“It came and went,” Brunk said.
Vietnam, on the other hand, “took literally years and
years to form on campus,” he added.
With reports from Menaka Fernando, Daily Bruin Staff.