Todd: He meant that he has no courage to stand up against the injustices of the occupation and demand an end to it. He also showed his lack of desire to stand with his constituents and the country in calling for an immediate withdrawal of occupying forces.
Ron:Who called the protest and occupation? Which student groups are active against the war in Madison? What kind of support do you get from other students and the community?
Zach: The Campus Antiwar Network (CAN) arranged for the protest itself to happen, as well as the student walk-out of class. As for the occupation of the office, I don't know. As for student groups, I believe that we are the only ones taking a strong stance against the war, although I don't know this for sure. We've tried to approach the College Democrats to see if they'll support us, but those who have tried have been shouted down or asked to not bring up this "radical" agenda. Thankfully though, there are several community groups, most notably the Wisconsin Area Peace Coalition, that are firmly on our side.
Todd: Iraq Vets Against the War (IVAW), Student Labor Action Coalition (SLAC), International Socialist Organization (ISO), al Awda, WNPJ, Madison Area Peace Coalition (MAPC) and other student and community groups supported our call to protest the occupation of Iraq by walking out of class to a rally and then by occupying Kohl's office with our request of a public meeting. A number of community members came to the rally and a few spent the night locked in our small confines waiting for our public meeting.
Chris: In general, students and the community are very supportive of the antiwar movement.
Ron: As you no doubt know, Madison was a hotbed of antiwar activity during the Vietnam war. In fact one of its most famous protests was the action against Dow recruiters portrayed in the film The War at Home. Another was the bombing of the Math Research Center that killed a grad student. Is the university still involved in war industry research? How?
Todd: You bet the university is still involved in war industry research. While I have no particular research the Madison Infoshop has a file folder full of military research contracts which vaguely describe the research being conducted for the military. In addition to the military research, this university is in bed with major war profiteers and welcomes them without even a second thought for career fairs and other events where they attempt to get UW students to join their unethical companies.
Josh: John Peck from the Infoshop here in Madison has done some research on the subject. A Freedom of Information Act revealed millions of dollars in active Pentagon contracts at UW. Areas of research include surveillance systems, quantum computers, and hypernetic computers to be used for the Star Wars program.
Ron: In terms of the protest movement against the war, do you think it has been effective? If so, how? If not, why?
Bernadette: Yes, I think we’ve been effective. Movements don’t happen over night. They take a while to grow and the campus anti war network is doing just that. The walkout demonstrated the power of numbers standing up in community. It offered hope for people that change is possible, if not over night.
Chris: Our goal is to build a movement that can stop the war. We haven't done that yet, obviously. But we have expanded the core of organizers significantly. (four months ago our CAN meetings were attended by 4 of us. Today it's over 20 regularly) Further, activists are learning from experience. The struggle itself is our greatest class room. The classes are getting bigger and the discussions are ahead, politically, of where they were several years ago. For example, racism against Arabs and Muslims is discussed as regularly as "What would happen if the US left Iraq today?" and the America's broader goals in the Middle East, etc. These discussions are not only welcomed in the movement, but necessary for our growth. Our goal - and we've begun to achieve this - is to make antiwar activism more educational and fulfilling than school. Given the misery of schoolwork and the terrible job market for graduates, we're operating on fertile ground.
Todd: A large part of the current antiwar movement are Democrats. This fact makes the numbers in the movement fluctuate as they work to get Democrats elected instead of focusing on ending the occupation. The movement however has been growing rapidly both here in Madison and nationally. We had a handful of members in CAN last semester but the lack of support for prowar Democrats has led to an increase in our membership and we have found a number of dedicated people to help us out. Another positive indication that the movement is growing is IVAW getting about 10 new member applications per week in its office, along with our first chapter on an active duty military base.
Zach: I think that the more press coverage that we can get showing us involved in peaceful, organized, well-coordinated action, the more effective we'll be able to be. Unfortunately, we're still very small. After watching the well-known documentary The War At Home, I have been fighting as hard as I can to get people interested in joining the antiwar movement. When we have 6000 people flooding the streets of Madison, sitting on the steps of the capitol building, then we can truly be effective. However, I do think that currently, we aren't being noticed enough by those in power to be truly effective. As mentioned though; our classmates and friends are taking notice of our actions, and, like Chris said, the size of CAN has quintupled in number. They started with 4 before I joined in January, and I'm proud to be with them.
Todd: We have been effective in that we have caused the majority of media to now refer to Operation Iraqi Freedom as an occupation instead of a war. We have also helped along with the lack of any progress on the non-mission in shifting public opinion towards a withdrawal with many calling for immediate withdrawal.
Josh: There's a lot to take into consideration. I don't think lobbying can have much impact in such biased and undemocratic institutions either. I think the focus really needs to be on organizing and networking with other groups. That's how you build political capital. Direct action is all well and good - it chips away at the machine. But it's a big machine and its going to take a big movement to take it down.
Ron: What do you think would make it more effective? More direct action? A different focus? Personally, I get very frustrated with the idea put forth by some national elements that we must focus on Congress--you know, pressuring them and lobbying them only to see them come up with bills that talk against the war but do nothing to end it. However, I'm not sure how to buck this trend. Any thoughts from you all?
