A History of Dissent

1943: Tuesday, January 5, 1943

It was Cicero who said it would be better if no one knew what the future held in store, for in that case each man would rise to meet each occasion as it exploded in his face, and would meet it in the best way possible. Cicero, though shouldst be living at this hour! For this hour is still within sight of the beginning of a new year — a year loaded with unforeseen occasions to be met in the best way possible.

1943 will not be very old before most of Cornell’s men will be in uniform and many of them in action. But 1943 is not merely a year in the lives of a few young men; it is a year in a war. The year is late in the war for some of the belligerents; it is early for us. The great giant that is America has awakened and its might has begun to be felt. 1943 will see more and more Cornell men becoming part of that might. And 1943 will see that might felt more and more in this, we fervently pray, victorious new year.

Dry Goodbye: Tuesday, January 5, 1943

“There is no excessive drinking among troops … no American Army in all history has been so orderly.” So said the OWI in a recent report on Army morale. Prohibition draws its long blue nose within its muffler, and slinks back, with considerably less fanfare that it slunk forth, to its lemonade, its scent of lavender and its old yellow lace.

For a time it seemed that the dries would employ the proverbial proboscis, greased with the wonderful ointment of war, as an entering wedge. “We must save the soldiers of America from the evils of alcohol.” And when the beautiful, the irresistible, the opportune drafting of 18 year-olds arrived, “We must save the children of America from the evils of alcohol.”

Wisely, America chose not to save its soldiers, men or children, from the e. of a. The soldiers of America, themselves wise, have dealt with the wassail bowl and, mirabile dictu, have avoided the evils. The flesh is not so weak as the ladies of the WCTU and their gentlemen friends would have us believe.

The flesh is also not so maggoty-headed. The OWI tells us that our soldier is “intelligent, he is able, he is a hard-worker.” He “needs neither curtain lecture nor apology.” If we, who are in fast-ripening embryo that solider, are not presumptuous, our hats are off to him.

[1]Our voices will be heard: Cornell students block off the Collegetown stone arch bridge in protest, part of a long history of activism on campus.

Father Dan: Monday, November 11, 1968

Father Dan Berrigan and his eight teammates on the Catonsville Nine have finally won a moral victory in their fight against the war. The judge’s sympathetic conduct during the trial and the relatively light sentence handed down Friday indicate that the law makes up in “heart” what it sometimes lacks in its more cerebral attributes.

To be sure, Berrigan and his colleagues did destroy most of the draft card files in a Baltimore Selective Service Board. But who can disagree with Berrigan that it is better to burn paper than people? And who would insist that harsh sentences are warranted for those who have shown us the impossibility of divorcing morality from the political decision-making process?

Here on campus, the question facing Day Hall’s third floor and the chaplains of CURW is whether Father Berrigan should be retained in his present position now that he has been convicted and sentenced. The decision has been postponed, however, until Berrigan has exhausted his appeals process. Our comment, too, has been postponed.

Meanwhile, we at Cornell should appreciate that Berrigan — who was originally liable to 54 years worth of prison sentences — received only a three-year penalty. For the present at least, he will remain at Cornell.

He will continue to instill Cornell students with his own love for humanity. He will constantly remind us to consider whether the actions we pursue daily are consistent with Judeo-Christian teachings and ethics. And hopefully his presence will inspire more of us to see that the war in Vietnam is ended before his prison sentence does. Hopefully by January 21.

Students Must Resist Apathy: Monday, March 24, 2003

Traditionally, returning to classes after spring break is a dubious affair. This year falling back in line with the routine of classes, exams, appointments and papers is made doubly difficult by the events that have unfolded on the world stage. If we are to have an impact on the events of tomorrow and each day thereafter, we must not allow ourselves to become jaded or apathetic to affairs both domestic and international.

Instead of falling into our old routines, it is crucial that we take a hard look at what is taking place in the world and exercise our right to express our opinions.

Currently two distinct narratives have come to the forefront of national debate over the U.S.-led military campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime. And as with all conflicting narratives, we must remember that the truth of the matter exists somewhere in-between these interpretations of events.

The first narrative says that ridding the world of Hussein and his government will help to bring peace to the Mid East and greater security to the world at large. It is an Occam’s razor argument, one which the simplest explanation is true. In this case, the “truth” is that Saddam Hussein is evil and that the U.S. is attempting to eliminate this evil. Proponents compare the goals of our country to the goals of the allies during the second world war — namely, to rid the world of a tyrant.

The second narrative claims that the many costs of this war are too great. Opponents of the war predict civilian deaths, the deaths of our troops, and compare this military action to the events of the Vietnam war. This is another Occam’s razor argument in which American greed is the simplest explanation for our country’s actions. This group claims that the war is an example of American imperialism that is in itself a form of terrorism.

In many respects, the goals of both proponents and opponents of this war are the same. Both call for greater peace and tranquility at home and abroad. Both sides support our troops. Both believe that Saddam Hussein’s despotic presidency and the atrocities acted out against his own population must be brought to an end.

Despite this polarization, the conflict seems to be taking place within the American people as well as among them. It seems that for each person supporting or opposing the war, there are two people sitting on the moral fence. Americans realize that allowing Hussein to continually evade the disarmament mandates of the cease-fire agreement of the first Gulf War is a grave and dangerous matter. On the other hand, many recognize a great dilemma in starting an unpopular and violent war for what may or may not be greater peace. Antiwar protests have broken out across the country and the world while simultaneously the media has dubbed supporters of the war the “silent majority.” Obviously the conflict is far more complex than “pro” and “anti.”

We live in a nation in which our right to express our opinions is protected. Conversely, America also affords its citizens the right to refuse to take a stand. This course of action is not morally responsible, particularly at a time when our nation’s leaders claim they have taken us into a war for the express purpose of bringing those same rights to an oppressed people.

Last week, our leadership brought us a war that caught many off guard. It is time for the American people to exercise their rights instead of merely talking about their importance.