"Some of us continue to be concerned that there is not full freedom of expression on campus. One purpose of the dialogues was to assure students that there are faculty members out there who are concerned and don't intend to remain silent," said Professor of Political Science Thomas Dumm. "As an inevitable result of the absolutely appropriate urge for patriotism, alternative voices that would be proposing dissenting policies are being stifled."
Dean of the Faculty Lisa Raskin is supportive of such efforts towards an unrestricted campus dialogue that includes all opinions, whether dissenting or assenting with the majority.
"Much has been written lately in the national press criticizing those who question the U.S. government and our actions in Afghanistan. Other commentary has opposed those who support our country's effort in the war," said Raskin. "I would like to reinforce the obligation we have as a College community to allow for the expression of all points of view."
Raskin commented on the importance of expressing conflicting views. "We must be free from intimidation to concur or dissent with the majority or minority of national opinion, as well as the majority or minority opinion on campus," said Raskin. "Open intellectual debate is what our institution must represent. We cannot lose sight of our purpose of free inquiry no matter how high our emotions run in these terribly trying times."
Eight professors from a group that meets weekly to dialogue among themselves about the response to the terrorist attack invited five groups of between 15 to 25 students to dinner discussions that focused on gauging the frequency of dialogue in other campus forums and on providing an arena for an open conversation.
"We didn't know how much dialogue had been going on; we've been aware of demonstrations and some teach-in activities, but we didn't think those were good settings for dialogue," said Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science Austin Sarat. "We wanted to bring students and faculty together in ways that weren't the usual pedagogical event. We didn't bring people together to tell them what to think, but rather to provide an occasion to think together."
Students who attended the events cited frustration with the call for unity and patriotism's restraints on public debate as reasons for attending the discussions.
"It is disturbing when such major events are transpiring around us and we don't have much public discussion," said Tom Fritzsche '03. "Someone saying 'you cannot disagree with me' is not really conducive to democratic dialogue and is contradictory to an academic discussion; we need to be able to disagree civilly with each other."
Some of the professors felt that the problem with campus dialogue was not the absence of dissent, but an assumption that the College's liberalism was united in opposition to general public opinion.
"In a liberal atmosphere people often assume that everyone means the same thing by 'dissent' or that everyone dissents in the same way," said Assistant Professor of English Marisa Parham. "This assumption of a strict difference between Amherst as opposed to the general cultural opinion can overshadow and marginalize actual campus dissent."
The professors made an effort to provide an unbiased forum where they were facilitators and equal participants in an open and unstructured conversational format.
"It's important to make there be a safe space for people to have all kinds of feelings and opinions," said Associate Professor of English Judith Frank. "I don't think our government has been encouraging us to think in a very complicated manner about what's going on. Insofar as I have an agenda, its encouraging students to explore with their full brains and emotions."
In addition to questioning information provided by the government, skepticism of the mass media was considered by most of the groups.
"The structure of the American news media is about scaring you about how afraid of 'X' you should be; that's how they sell all news," said Frank. "I think that that's a ratings issue, not a truth issue, so we talked about skepticism of the media and the way it reports on these crises."
Regardless of efforts at impartiality, the professors acknowledged their tendency towards a nonspecific dissent from general opinion and public policy.
"I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying that this is a group [of professors] in favor of the possibility of dissent," said Professor of English Andrew Parker. "Rather than any particular content to the dissent, however, it is most important that we make sure that dissent is possible."
The professors contested the conclusion that the necessity of national unity precludes informed dissent, and, when they directed the conversations, they attempted to reframe the debate on less divisive grounds.
"I don't think [the country] stands united, and I don't think we necessarily should stand united," said Frank. "I'm one of those people who thinks democracy is about being able to have different opinions and stand against the government. I don't believe that 'you're either with us or against us;' I don't believe we are good and they are evil."
The dialogues also attempted to address the complications of debate in other forums, which many students noted as having dwindled in the weeks following the first air strikes.
"We discussed the ambiguity of what patriotism means right now and the comfort or discomfort of finding out where you stand at Amherst," said Parham. "There was a sense among the students that you have to be careful about what you talk about in everyday dialogue because the people you are speaking with are friends and roommates, so being respectful of friends' opinions could cut off the expression of dissent."
Students expressed dissatisfaction with the displacement of a current events debate by a return to everyday conversation that largely ignores the extraordinary activities in Afghanistan.
"This was the most in-depth and intellectual forum for discussion I've ever had on the subject," said A.J. Chianese '05. "It provided a thought-provoking alternative to short conversations with friends that don't end up going anywhere because there's no dissent to the mainstream viewpoint."
Though the conversations were informal and included some levity, the serious subject matter grounded the debate.
"I gave the students notice that, if I'm ever killed in a terrorist attack, I don't want them to avenge me," said Frank. "It was kind of a joke, and I just wanted to say that I don't think that everyone who died would want to see vengeance carried out in his or her name."
Students who attended the events indicated an interest in attending future events and potentially expanding the scope of the conversation towards a greater segment of the campus.
"I would definitely go if there were some way to have other dialogues," said Fritzsche. "I don't know if they want to encourage professors to set up their own discussions, but it would be great if there was an organized way to have more opportunities like this while keeping it small enough to encourage active participation."
The professors, who also included Associate Professor of Russian Catherine Ciepiela and Professor of French Leah Hewitt, were largely in agreement that the discussions were successful in re-igniting dialogue.
"Throughout the country, we are in a different situation than we used to be regarding the extent that people are free to express themselves," said Dumm. "There is a much narrower range of what opinions are 'acceptable,' and there was concern that if you do not exercise the freedom to speak out in dissent it becomes harder and harder to do so as time goes by."