Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, public opinion in the US has developed from initial national mourning and patriotic solidarity to include more varied and complex dialogue concerning terrorism and how to combat it. Prominent among groups voicing their concerns with the American reaction are college professors.
As an American military response grew imminent, some began to question the efficacy and morality of such action. This criticism has naturally grown since the beginning of the air campaign over Afghanistan on Oct. 8.
Some political scientists question the mechanical or operational aspects of Operation Infinite Justice, and others call into question the moral justification of any military response. At Tufts, professors have voiced their concerns with US policy in different ways.
Political science professor Malik Mufti warned in a forum on Oct. 12 that the US would have to go it alone in Afghanistan, referring to an "illusion of a general consensus against terrorism." Professors Gary Leupp and Steven Marrone of the History department led a teach-in on Sept. 28, well before the strikes began, urging students to look beyond the immediate situation for root causes of terrorism in US foreign policy.
Tufts isn't the only area school where academics are raising doubts about the American reaction to the terrorist attacks. Ever since the attacks, colleges have held forums and round-table discussions on the emerging diplomatic and military situation in Afghanistan.
A teach-in discussion held at MIT on Oct. 4 featured four political science professors who offered their analysis and advice for US foreign policy. Concerns raised in the discussion included "over-Americanizing" the fight against global terror, violating international norms against killing civilians in a military campaign, and, as with Professor Mufti, the danger of a unilateral US response. Steven Van Evera, a political science professor, went on to criticize broader American foreign policy, emphasizing the importance of interdependent coalition building for international threats:
"The U.S. should understand that we're asking the world to accept unequal power relations, a double standard," he said. "If we want the privilege and the right of being a superpower we cannot be arrogant. We must take other people into account all the time."
Howard Zinn, professor emeritus of history at Boston University and now a columnist for The Progressive, used his column to call for a peaceful reaction to the terrorist attacks, as little as three days later. Citing numerous examples from history of failed military retaliations against terrorists, Zinn called on Americans to avoid more bloodshed of innocent civilians and to make America's influence felt through diplomatic and economic alternatives rather than a military campaign.
"Isn't it clear by now that sending a message to terrorists through violence doesn't work, only leads to more terrorism?" Zinn asks in his article.
This week, Daniel Terris, director of the International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life and Brandeis University, published an editorial in the Los Angeles Times asking Americans to see themselves above all as global citizens.
"The time has come to scale back our self-righteousness. Our enemies never bought our assertions of American greatness. Our friends, however, even our closest allies, are beginning to resent our self-importance," Terris said.
Terris stressed that while the burst of patriotism that has swept the country can serve the positive purpose of uniting the people against terrorism, the attacks were committed against the free world. He said we should therefore stress the international consequences of the attacks, and seek international solutions to terrorism.
"Efforts to build a global coalition are bound to be more fruitful if we approach potential partners, not as a swaggering savior, but as fellow citizens of a world in peril," he said.
