The College Hill Independent

Back

Despite Schism,
Brown antiwar groups make last-minute plans to express opposition
. . . by Andrei Scheinkman

With less than 24 hours before President Bush’s ultimatum to Saddam Hussein expires, students across campus discussed their thoughts about the war. In Wilson 109, the members of Not Another Victim Anywhere made final arrangements for their part in the “emergency response plan,” a series of actions by antiwar groups across the city and around the country planned for the morning after the attack begins. Claire Caleshu B‘06, one of the meeting’s organizers, wore a sign around her neck that read,“Fasting against the war.” Discussing both strategy and logistics, the fifteen students made plans for a 24-hour human peace sign in front of the State House to begin that morning at 5 am. They talked about publicity for rallies and coordination with antiwar groups outside of Brown.
At the same time, a group named Students Against the War in Iraq gathered on the third floor of Faunce. In a sweltering room with walls covered in political posters—calling for worker’s rights, the end of sweatshops and freedom for Mumia Abu Jamal—a dozen students sweated profusely and similarly discussed their plans for the next few weeks of antiwar actions, throwing around ideas for posters and suggestions for slogans. They discussed the state of the antiwar movement. Having failed to prevent a war, should they feel demoralized? If the opposition of millions of people on the streets of New York, Washington D. C., Paris, Rome, São Paulo and Tokyo had been brushed aside with hardly a comment by the Bush administration, what difference could they make as a small campus group once the war had begun?

For both organizations, the main topic of the evening was how to reach out to students who oppose the war but are not members of antiwar groups and may not know what they can do to express their opposition. What is the best way to include students from different political backgrounds? How can they best welcome students who may have never attended a political rally but have strong feelings about the current situation?
Alden Eagle B‘03, the chair of last night’s SAWI meeting, expressed hope and frustration at the prospect of mounting a broad-based coalition in the upcoming weeks. “If we can communicate effectively, we could fill the main green with kids,” said Alden, who is also a member of the steering committee of the Brown chapter of the International Socialist Organization. “It could look like commencement, or Spring Weekend, because that many people are against the war.”

Despite all the talk of joining together and building coalitions, however, the two meetings proceeded as if unaware of each other’s existence. When asked what separated the two groups, members of both hesitated to provide details, citing mutual differences and making vague comments about incompatible approaches to political organizing. Indeed, the two meetings felt very different. While the NAVA meeting seemed like an informal discussion among friends, students at the SAWI meeting raised their hands for permission to speak, announced agenda items, seconded each others’ motions and talked about votes and resolutions. At NAVA, there were three times as many women as men, while SAWI was majority male, with two men, Alden Eagle and Shaun Joseph B’03, dominating the discussion.
Persistence and prodding, however, revealed a much deeper rift between the two groups, one that extends beyond differences in organizational style. Although many were reluctant to discuss the issue, a member of NAVA explained the origins of the schism that split Brown’s antiwar community. According to the NAVA member, who asked to remain anonymous, the divide came about last November, shortly after Howard Zinn’s speech on campus left students with a new sense of urgency about the possibility of war in Iraq. NAVA, which was formed during the military campaign in Afghanistan that followed the 9/11 attacks, had been “invaded” by members of the Brown chapter of the ISO, the militant Leninist-Trotskyite organization whose members are often found selling their Socialist Worker newspaper on the Main Green. Although ISO members claimed to want to broaden the coalition of campus groups against the war, NAVA members felt they were co-opting the organization for their own ends.

The decisive moment came during a meeting involving members of the Student Labor Alliance, NAVA and other left-wing groups on campus. The ISO leadership, according to members of NAVA, refused to accept a coalition structure for the meeting that would give each organization an equal voice. “The tried to completely control the agenda and the meeting ended up with a Central Committee vibe,” the NAVA student said, referring to the quasi-parliamentary body founded by Lenin in 1912 when the Bolsheviks split with the Social-Democrat Workers’ Party. A mutual decision, he said, had sent the ISO members out of NAVA to found their own antiwar organization.

There’s no such thing, of course, as a completely mutual breakup. ISO organizer and SAWI founder Shaun Joseph says that the NAVA students were being exclusive. After he and his fellow International Socialists began to participate, NAVA held a formal vote to expel them from the group. When asked if he had intentionally scheduled his meeting last night to coincide with NAVA’s, Shaun replied,“How could I know when they meet? I’m officially barred from attending any of their meetings.”

The rupture between campus groups reflects the divisiveness among the left that has plagued movements on the campus, city and national level. In Providence, the broad antiwar coalition behind the rallies and vigils of the past several weeks, and the antiwar resolution passed by the Providence City Council, almost fell apart a few weeks ago. Differences between the ANSWER coalition—a group whose are leaders are involved with what some describe as hard-core Stalinist organizations—and the more moderate faith-based groups that form the bulk of the movement in Providence threatened to unravel months of organizing, a senior official at a Providence peace organization said.
But at this crucial moment, as our country stands on the brink of war, students in NAVA and in SAWI expressed the need to go beyond their differences and work hard to create the broadest possible coalition. Liz Tierney, one of the organizers of the NAVA meeting, said she hoped that students would work with either group, as long as they found some way to express their opposition to the war. “There’s enough of a difference between the two that I hope students can find what suits them best,” she said.

Personal, political and ideological differences aside, students at both meetings expressed similar reasons for spending the evening working to organize opposition to the war. At this profoundly solemn moment in our young lives, as forces beyond our control threaten to push the world towards death and destruction, we are forced to recognize the limits of our own power. No matter how big the rally, how many signs painted and candles lit, not even the most optimistic can hope to prevent our nation from war with Iraq. The desire to mobilize our peers and organize ourselves is a rational, thoughtful response to the policies our government has adopted. But just as important is the simple desire to seek comfort with others who share our anger, confusion and sadness. Whether we prefer chanting at rallies or quiet candlelight vigils, whether we choose to work with NAVA or SAWI, the American Friends Service Committee or the ANSWER coalition, we all want confirmation that we’re not alone in our fear. In both Wilson Hall and the third floor of Faunce, with so many different people with different beliefs maintaining their determination to act and speak out against the coming war, I almost felt as if I could still hope for peace.

—-Andrei Scheinkman ’05

Back to Indy Home