Julie Ajinkya '03, progressive students' alliance
"Anti-war protests' efficacy has yet to be determined since a legitimate war has yet to begin. It is true that the words of protests might fall on deaf ears, but their importance lies in the process and not in their end results. Two things are at stake: democracy and national security. While we strive to establish democracies worldwide in the name of international security, skepticism towards anti-war protests reveals the danger of silencing the cornerstone of democracy at home-dissent. And while national security is of utmost importance to any nation, these protests demonstrate hundreds of thousands of people voicing their convictions and declaring that our national security will not be sustainable if unilateralism is allowed to surpass international law."
Ben Baum '03, college democrats
"The right to assemble and protest is
fundamental to our Constitution. The Founding Fathers knew the importance of this right: the majority might elect, but the minority must remain represented. The power of protest is the ability to make a minority voice heard. While those opposed to war with Iraq are a minority in the US, it is unfortunate to see how their right of protest is abused, and their message goes unheard by our government. I, for one, am moved by reasoned justification, not by loud voices and mass numbers. Where are the great speeches? Where are the alternative ideas? The minority has a tough job: to change the minds of the majority. Just as I expect justification of war from the President, I expect justification of peace from the protesters. The President, and the majority, can hear yelling, but few ideas. No wonder these protests have little effect."
Frank Couvares, professor of history and american studies
"The real question is, 'effective in doing what?' In the present instance, protests, though very large, are not likely to thwart the drive to war, although the final shoe hasn't dropped yet. They have probably forced the administration to try harder to win allied support for the war and to make a more plausible case, but I wouldn't exaggerate this effect. One effect might be to rally those generally critical of US foreign policy, in particular of this administration's relatively uncritical support for the Likud government in Israel and the broader tendency of American governments to bully their way around the middle east (and other neighborhoods). The demonstrations might also strengthen the hand of those Democratic presidential candidates who want to utter more critical comments about that foreign policy and might take heart from demonstrations of popular support for such positions. These questions are hard to answer. Did Congressman Abraham Lincoln's opposition to the war with Mexico stop that war? No, but it helped shape opposition to the expansion of slavery and thereby effected the history of the next several decades and beyond."
Margaret Hunt, professor of history and WAGS
"At this point demonstrations are not likely to affect whether or not our country goes to war with Iraq. However they do some other things which are very important. First, they help build morale. Second, demonstrations provide crucial organizing experience. Political skills are learned, not inherited, and every new generation of activists reinvents them in a new way. Third, putting on a demonstration helps build alliances. The bonds that get formed over the months and years of demonstration are the ones that make any movement strong. In time they will allow us to wrest America back from an administration that is much more extreme on virtually every issue than the majority of the American people. Fourth, big turn-outs at demonstrations put both progressives and conservatives on notice: progressives that they've got support for fighting the good fight, conservatives that we're closely watching what they do with respect to civil liberties, the environment, atrocities against civilians, international treaties, nuclear weapons, and the like. These are among the reasons why I, along with at least 1,000 people from Amherst, Northampton and South Hadley, will be going to New York City on Feb. 15."
Ron Tiersky, professor of political science
"Of course anti-war protests can be effective. But they are not always so, nor should they be. Whether anti-war protests are effective depends on the war and the depth and intensity of opposition. I was a graduate student at Columbia University in the anti-Vietnam war and civil rights protests of 1968. Our protests, there and across the nation, were devastating, as history has recorded. This was, simply, because opposition to the war was the right thing. On the other hand, opposition to U.S. involvement in World War II could have been heartfelt (on the claim that violence only begets more violence), but politically and morally bankrupt. Whether opposition to a war against the Saddam Hussein regime is good or bad is a matter in question. To oppose all war is, in any case, unthinkable. Just war doctrine, and every other moral code excepting absolute non-violence, recognizes self-defense as legitimate. War is always evil, but sometimes it is a necessary evil."