Discussions on Iraq War Turn Nasty

Friday, April 4, 2003
Discussions on Iraq War Turn Nasty
By Jim Belshaw Of the Albuquerque Journal

Here's my problem with the anti-war protesters: They make valid points and I find none of the people making those points to be idiots or stooges and above all I don't believe they are traitors.
Here's my problem with those who argue in support of war ?- they make arguments that make sense to me; I might have questions about the arguments for war and its aftermath, but in the end I can see their reasoning and at times it is hard to fault it, regardless of its risks. (They say taking no risk is the greatest risk of all.)
Before the war started, I was inclined to oppose it. I want now only to win it decisively and quickly and bring our men and women in the armed forces home safely. I am in the camp that says once it begins, it is time to shut up and stand behind those men and women.
I suspect saying that already has the flame throwers heating up. It's the way we do things now and that might be the most difficult problem of all.
It's great fun to demonize, and poisonous, too.
The facile labels ?- hawks and doves (or patriots and turncoats, if you must) ?- are too easy, the usual political dog tags that ID the extremes that have defined so much of our public discourse for so long and are made even more extreme now with the riveting images of war and its suffering.
Too much of our discourse is the logical extension of the Internet "flame," the clever e-mail hip shot, in which you don't bother attacking an argument but go straight to the heart of the matter ?- the ill-conceived motives of the idiot making the argument. We're all talk show hosts now.
"These are tough calls to make," said Peter Simonson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in New Mexico. "We are in a gray area where I don't think anybody knows for sure and there really isn't good case law to define this moment."
I called him to talk about the incidents of teachers posting anti-war materials in classrooms and the subsequent actions taken by Albuquerque Public Schools because of it. It seemed to me that none of them came with an easily applied label; that, in fact, they were like so much else in the argument that raged before the war began and continues now.
Each came with its own strengths and weakness. Each, to use Simonson's phrase, was a tough call.
"We're struggling with it ourselves," he said. "We've had a raging debate on the national ACLU legal listserv (Internet discussion group) on questions like this: Where does a teacher's responsibility lie to be an unbiased representative of the school's curriculum? There is debate on both sides of the issue, but by and large, I think most of the ACLU feels pretty strongly that a teacher's First Amendment rights in the classroom context are fairly circumscribed, that the obligation to be unbiased and present an objective view supersedes all else."
I spoke with an elementary school principal who opposes the war in Iraq. A teacher in her school had discussed the war in the classroom and students drew signs and posters. So did the teacher, opposing the war. A parent complained.
"It's really hard to separate myself from my own (anti-war) opinions, but I don't feel the school is the proper place for a person to advance his or her own political agenda," the principal said. "When it comes to the war, it's very much my opinion that teachers shouldn't shy away from discussing the issue in class. In this case, I had a hard time agreeing with the idea of taking down the sign, but it's not a hill I'm going to die on. Teachers are allowed to express their opinions. It's a good model for students to see people state their opinions. But I don't want to open up the whole bag of nails and snails with signs up and down the school halls."
It would be so much easier if all the easy labels worked. But they don't.