TABLE OF CONTENTS |
FRONT PAGE
| NEXT ARTICLE |
PREVIOUS ARTICLE |
UNC HOMEPAGE
Students strode to the microphones with questions laced with their shock and
grief and rage.
The panel of experts answered as best they could by reminding everyone that
there are not yet any good answers to explain what happened on the morning of
Sept. 11, or any solid clues as to what might happen next.
As Cori Dauber, an associate professor in communication studies, told one
student, "We do not yet know what we do not know."
The "teach-in," as it was called, took place inside the auditorium of Carroll
Hall immediately following the Sept. 12 memorial service conducted in Polk
Place.
Other panelists were Richard Kohn, chair of the Curriculum in Peace, War and
Defense and Brenda Schoonover, a diplomat-in-residence at Carolina who formerly
served as the U.S. ambassador to Togo, a small country on the western coast of
Africa.
Schoonover said it would be wise remember in the midst of such raw emotion that
Islam is an old and respected religion. "While there are fanatical leaders
within this religion, as there are with any religion including Christianity,
the majority of people who embrace Islam are peaceful people who deserve our
respect and the right to live in peace."
One student asked if the United States should act unilaterally so as to avoid
delay in building a coalition with its allies.
Dauber said she would have agreed with that idea until she saw stunning video
footage from Europe. Outside the U.S. embassy in London there were rows upon
rows of flowers. "I think people remember World War II," she said.
The problem, though, is that terrorism fought by fanatical groups is far more
complex and harder to predict and stop than acts of war committed by rogue
countries. It was simple to understand why Suddam Hussein attacked Kuwait, for
instance. What did Suddam want in 1990? Kuwait. What did the terrorists want on
Sept. 11? One thing they wanted was publicity, and they succeeded. "What did
you do yesterday?" asked Dauber. "You ran to the first television you could
find and didn't move. They got that."
They shut down the financial sector.
They shut down aviation.
They shut down the federal government.
And they made us all afraid, if not for ourselves, for loved ones in New York
City and Washington.
What else might they want?
"One of the things they try to do is to suck us into a response that will make
us more hated," Dauber said.
The pronouncements from Arab governments of regret and concern over what
happened ran counter to the anti-American passion flowing through Arab streets.
"If we move too quickly and too abruptly, and potentially, even if we don't
move too quickly, even if we move with absolutely clear evidence, we ain't
going to be more loved than we are right now."
One student in her class Wednesday morning asked Dauber to compare President
Bush's speech with the "day that will live in infamy" speech Franklin Roosevelt
gave after the attack on Pearl Harbor. "It's not a fair question because the
restraints on rhetoric are so vast," Dauber said.
Kohn, too, said the country would be making a great mistake to respond to
terrorism as if it were at war.
What the nation has to do, and what everyone should do as citizens, is to
consider what the goals should be, Kohn said, and those goals should guide our
response.
"Our primary goal in my judgment is to try to prevent this from ever happening
again," Kohn said. "The second goal should be to bring to account who was
responsible, if possible through legal institutions, and if not, through some
form of retaliation. The first two goals in many respects are the same goal."
Dauber said it is a mistake to think that getting rid of the supposed
mastermind of the attacks would somehow make everything all right. The country
has tried this in the past with Suddam Hussein and with Fidel Castro. The
danger is making someone a martyr and allowing their following and influence to
grow.
Many questioners wanted to know how their lives were going to change, how
increasing security throughout the country will diminish freedoms. And it is
this area that the views of Kohn and Dauber diverged.
Kohn said this event will alter U.S. foreign policy and capture Americans'
imaginations in the weeks and months ahead. However, Kohn does not believe it
will fundamentally change the way we as Americans go about our lives.
"I'm an optimist," Kohn said. "I think we'll be inconvenienced. I think the
government will have to take things to the point where we will be concerned
about civil rights and civil liberties. There will be attempts in the Congress
to pass legislation that will be controversial. And so I think this will
capture the civic discourse for the next two or three months. There will be
some changes. But I don't think those changes will be substantial for each and
every one of us individually."
Dauber said she would like to think Kohn was right, but she doesn't.
"I'm a pessimist," Dauber said. "My great fear, and I think the answer is up to
you all, is that this is going to turn out to be the defining event for your
generation, that it truly is another Pearl Harbor."
The fact that people are already talking about increased security as an
inconvenience is a sign that the country's mentality has begun to shift, she
said.
Think about it this way: On Monday, how angry would you have gotten about a
delay at an airport? Now think about how angry you would be about the same
delay this Friday, she said. "If you are even willing to get on a flight."
Schoonover saw something good coming out of all this, too.
"It will make us more aware of the world," Schoonover said. "We will be forced
to be less isolated."
Government officials have the responsibility to try to find out who did this
and why, Schoonover told the students. "But you do as well."
TABLE OF CONTENTS |
FRONT PAGE
| NEXT ARTICLE |
PREVIOUS ARTICLE |
UNC HOMEPAGE