War Dominates Weekly Lunch Debates

Author: Josh Carson

The Student Government Association (SGA) has started holding weekly lunchime debates centering on current events. These discussions are designed to proceed in an informal but intellectual environment.
Every Tuesday afternoon, students, faculty and staff are invited to discuss and express opinions, fears and concerns about events transpiring in the world at large. The war in Iraq has dominated recent debates.
"The goals of the discussion are two-fold," said SGA President Ginny Hunt '03. "First, to bring together faculty, staff and students from all perspectives to discuss the current events; second, to ensure that there is a regular space and a regular time when all members of the community can come together, even if to just listen."
However, the discussions are also in response to a more provocative question: what is the SGA's role in regards to the war? In March, the New Left, the College Progressives, Middlebury United for Peace, Environmental Quality and Amnesty International submitted a petition asking the SGA Senate to adopt a political position opposing a pre-emptive U.S. military strike on Iraq.
The SGA, however, found it to be "beyond its purview and detrimental to the student body to establish an official opinion on such unresolved topics of American foreign policy."
Consequently, the SGA Senate and other student political groups established a forum where students can debate the war in Iraq, a "complex topic of grave concern to student life and community welfare."
Although turnout varies greatly at these gatherings, students and faculty engage in an informal intellectual discussion about a broad spectrum of topics and eat lunch at the same time.
Some attendees have religious or political interests while others simply want to listen and educate themselves.
Although the conversation rarely follows a set agenda, a question sheet provides initial guidance to start the discussion
Last Tuesday's discussion focused on the rebuilding of Iraq and the role international organizations, like the United Nations, should play in the process. Professor of Political Science David Rosenberg fielded questions from students and provided insight into the political challenges of democratization that lay ahead.
"If the new government is to be seen as credible, it must have local participation in the transition and the new government," Rosenberg said.
"I don't believe the U.S. military has the capability to deliver social welfare goods. And if they don't [deliver social welfare goods], it will widely be seen in the region as a neo-colonial war."
The students also discussed historical precedents for and the political consequences of the war. But, as Ben Labolt '03 argued, "the Bush administration has tied itself to the success of Iraq. The troops and financial aid symbolizes that commitment."
The discussion oscillated between current events and ideological debates. Topics from American relations with Syria to arms proliferation were discussed.
Although only eight students and one professor attended the discussion this week, the debates will continue and all students, faculty and staff are invited. Those in attendance this week expressed dismay that so few viewpoints were offered on such a dynamic subject.
In general, the group lacked conservative voices who may have expressed support for the Bush administration and its current policy. At the end of the discussion, there was a consensus that a more diverse set of viewpoints would benefit all involved.
The next lunchtime debate occurs Tuesday, 12:30 p.m. in Ross 11.