The College Hill Independent

Back

From the Editors

Straw men everywhere. The most difficult thing about deciding where to stand—or where not to stand—is the cyclone of fact and rhetoric spinning very nearly out of control. The volume of information being sent to anyone who will pay attention leaves a difficult task for whoever tries to sit down and sort it all out. These are difficult times for everyone, and self-expression is undoubtedly a way to cope, whether you are chalking the main green or anchoring a show on CNN, The search for truth is always an honorable crusade, and it comes with a responsibility to get the facts right.

—AC

If you saw the BDH on Wednesday, March 19, you probably saw the full-page advertisement listing university professors and organizations that advocate a walkout the day of, or immediately after, the first bombing of Iraq. If you scanned through the names of the supporters of the walkout “resolution” you may have seen The College Hill Independent listed.

By signing our name to the list, we are implicitly establishing our newspaper as an antiwar publication, at least at the organizational level—though, if you peruse this issue carefully, you’ll notice that the sentiment extends overwhelmingly to the editorial level as well.

This was an interesting move for our “independent” publication to make. Especially in light of a recent organizational and editorial decision to get rid of all definitive and unitary editorial statements—if you’ll notice, we no longer have one “From the Editors” column. We always have two. Sometimes, though unfortunately not often enough, they even contradict each other.

The notion of our paper as an “independent” publication creates a crisis: at once, we are independent from any affiliation (except for maybe our affiliation to our printer and the UFB for our funding), but we also have the independence to affiliate ourselves however we want. So, we are independent—free—to say we are against the war. But, by being independent to say we are against the war, we are no longer independent. We are now dependent upon an explicitly declared political ideology.

This problem of independence extends even to our editorial position. We are independent, and therefore free to publish any and every article we choose. But the newspaper’s independence is limited by this “we” who determine what is published and what is left lingering indefinitely on our hard drives. We bring our own explicit and implicit standards about writing, decency, style, and appropriateness, and decide what gets published and what does not.
Hence, when deciding what should be printed in this “War” issue, we already had preconceived notions—presuppositions—of what should be published and what should not be published. Just how we had presuppositions about how to define our organizational independence. Just how we could decide that being independent was to be against the war.

Upon opening the BDH, we were immediately confronted with the problematic of being independent.
There is a link between our sense of independence as a publication and our nation’s sense of democracy. As Professor Bernard Reginster elucidates in his article (see page 4), the U.S. has a problem: how can it export a democracy that one, was exported undemocratically, and two, was born in a country that is becoming increasingly less democratic itself?

Likewise, how can The College Hill Independent sign on to a politicized advertisement calling for a campus wide walkout and still call itself independent?
I, unfortunately, don’t have an answer for you. Perhaps we should change our publication’s name. Perhaps we should just bag our impossible “independence.”
Perhaps you and I should stop trusting what is “independent.”

—BZY

While watching The View one day, I saw an interview with one of Saddam Hussein’s former mistresses. The interviewer was shocked when the woman revealed that Hussein was obsessed with one of America’s own sex symbols, an iconic woman of bare flesh and materialism in gross excess. Madonna or Cher, I can’t remember.
I’ve rarely prayed. Last night before bed it was either a prayer or a thought about what I would say if I were in the position to offer a meditation, an invocation, if a table full of expectant faces turned in my direction so as to say, “Well?”

I would pray that men in power listen to the voices around them, try and hear the feelings of their people.
I would pray that the peace activists think about the feelings and values that draw them to the work for justice.
I would pray that those who are praying in houses and shelters and churches would stream into the streets and raise their voices, as well as their prayers, for peace.

—ES

Frankly, I think there is little to be said that hasn’t been said already. But what I find most senseless and revolting is the self-righteous rhetoric used to justify unwarranted military action. Why does the current administration consider it their obligation to define freedom for people of profoundly different histories and cultures? And this hallucinated duty seems so much more ludicrous when I consider even what’s printed on the pages of this issue alone: that open forums such as this still exist, that the opportunity to disagree with each other is still our country’s most cherished privilege, that indeed our country cannot and will not agree on whether this war should be happening—these are the most obvious reasons why Bush and his supporters’ discourse and actions are, in the end, decidedly un-American.

—AKN

Having been brought up in a household with “Dukakis” and “Clinton” plastered on every potholder, it’s hard for me to get inside the mind of the Republican party and understand why this war is about to occur. It’s even harder when the Bush administration’s justifications for the war in Iraq seem to change with every new opinion poll, from “fighting terrorism” to “weapons inspections” to the now-favored “regime change.”

So what are the Bush administrations’ “real” motivations for the war? “Oil” is one obvious answer, but I think it goes much further than that. Though the Republican party is at a peak of power, it has bought that power at the expense of political sustainability. It is a party caught between a rock and a hard place—between rhetoric of “smaller government” and the political penalties of smaller government, which include a failing economy and fewer social programs that might inspire loyalty to Washington. The lack of attendance at polls only goes to show the increasing alienation of Americans. A Keynesian war may be the only way the Republicans can boost the economy and inspire patriotism without alienating their supporters by (God forbid!) funding social programs. Unfortunately, this life-support for a party about to collapse under its own contradictions will be paid for in lives.

—JS

There was a little-noticed turning point a few weeks ago in the drive for war, when President Bush first stated that disarmament would not be enough for Iraq to avert war, but that Saddam Hussein would also have to leave the country. Perhaps we did not consider this big news, because people in the Bush White House had long talked of their desire for “regime change.” But this statement by Bush was very significant, because it eliminated any incentive Saddam Hussein may have previously had to cooperate with the disarmament process.
In Monday’s New York Times, White House correspondent Elizabeth Bumiller reported that Bush is reading Michael Bechsloss’ The Conquerors in his spare time. The book is a history of the allied fight against Nazi Germany in World War II, and the subsequent efforts to rebuild Germany after the war.

The problem is not simply one of oil. The problem is that Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the neo-conservative hawks in the Department of Defense, are eager to play God, and remake the Middle East in their own image. I am not against democracy in Iraq, but it seems to me that by its very nature, democracy must come about through the actions of the Iraqi people themselves. It cannot be imposed from above.

And, of course, the problem is not just imperial arrogance. The problem is that the United Nations estimates there will be 500,000 Iraqi casualties and 2 million refugees as a result of the war. Five hundred thousand casualties is over160 times the number of casualties on September 11.

Imagine the horror of September 11 multiplied by 160 and then tell me that you support this war.

—PIA

Supporters of the war with Iraq are primarily motivated by self-preservation. (Just like the war’s opponents.)

—JSG

Back to Indy Home