When a military conflict with Iraq was looming on the horizon, in a safe haven of a Brandeis classroom and abstract thought, Prof. Marion Smiley (PHIL) prepared her Ethics class (PHIL 114b) for war. "After break we will begin with war and morality," she said referring to the curriculum, "which might by then be a more pertinent issue than I had expected." "Hopefully, " she added, "it won't come to that."



Playing dirty

When the war in Iraq began, students in PHIL 114b complemented dated readings of war crimes and tactics with the freshly reported examples from across the world. Having predominantly addressed the Mai Lai massacre as a prime example of military atrocity, Smiley devoted a lecture to more current examples: white-flag ambush, the use of non-military vehicles in combat and the humiliation of prisoners of war. The students analyzed these tactics on the part of the Iraqi military in the context of dignity, utility and morality. Although a large part of the class agreed that using such methods was "playing dirty," in the words of philosopher Thomas Nagel, this verdict was not reached with unanimity.



Decisions and justifications

While philosophy students were coincidentally shaken out of the usual abstraction of their discussion, courses like Professor Seyom Brown's (POL) U.S. Foreign Policy since WWII (POL 168b) molded more naturally to current events. The goal of the course is to explore the changes in U.S's world role, and with only a slight break in the chronology of their curriculum, the class naturally shifted their eyes to Iraq and their reading materials to newspapers and the Web.

On Thursday morning, Brown lectured on the differences between the current war and the Persian Gulf war of 1991. "George Bush Sr. had a more convincing justification," he told his class, "given that an aggression had taken place across an international boundary."

"It was easier to put together an impressive coalition, of which even Egypt and Syria were a part. This time the threat is more ambiguous, and our objective - changing the regime - is usually not as acceptable."

Brown interpreted the incorporation of the current war into lecture and classroom discussion as a significant contribution to the comprehension and decision-making powers of his students. "What we can do in a classroom is somewhat different than can be done in a rally or teach-in," he said. "That generates more enthuse or condemnation on the part of the crowd. (In class) we're trying to understand and to appreciate, and that doesn't mean to endorse."

Before delving into current press-media, Brown fostered this appreciation in his students by assigning memoirs of influential political figures. By studying the minds of our politicians, Brown said he hopes students realize that "the people making these decisions are for the most part really wrestling with the issues." Having worked in the Department of Defense and Department of State, Brown says he feels he is capable of and obligated to expose his students to "the kind of serious thinking that goes on."



Human rights

An amalgam of philosophical and political issues was brought to the floor in another one of Brown's Politics courses - Human Rights and International Relations. Dividing their attention between the war on terrorism and that with Iraq, students of POL 163a analyzed the extent to which civil liberties have been put on the defensive by current imperatives. Brown's concern is the "great leeway to compromise human rights in the case of a national emergency." Various homeland defense initiatives, installment of surveillance devices and profiling were among the examples Brown referred to as infringements on basic human rights. The subsequent goal of the course is not only to map them out, but to speculate why "people are putting up with them."

Approaching rampant war crimes from a more political perspective than PHIL 114b, Brown mused that the "adversaries seem more guilty than the U.S." However, he pointed out an irony in American efforts to brand Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his regime as war criminals, given our refusal to join the newly established International Criminal Court. It is this unilateral attitude that fatigues the coercion of support from our allies, Brown said.

In additional to current military action, human rights factor into a retrospective calculation of the war's pros and cons. "There will be a tremendous dislocation of people's lives and ordinary means of survival - creating hunger, starvation and disease," Brown said. "And who will be the guardian of the victim's of Saddam's regime? It is not clear that once victorious - like in Kosovo and Afghanistan -- we will concern ourselves with human rights."



Voices of Europe

Dominating politics and daily conversation, current events in Iraq brought Professor Stephen Whitfield's (AMST) America in the World class to a similar junction to Smiley's and Brown's. Although AMST 156b is not designed to trace a military interaction but rather a primarily cultural one, "a course of a dozen students that was designed well in advance of the current crisis has somehow had to confront this in the curriculum," Whitfield said.

To properly address the war, Whitfield invited two guest lecturers to address the topic of war. Prof. Richard Pells of the University of Texas -- author of "Not Like Us," a required reading for the course - came to discuss European fluctuation of love and hate toward America. Having just returned from Germany, he spoke of the nation's contemporary attitudes toward war and the U.S. Pells referred to Germany's experience with the horrors of war as a partial source of hostility to our foreign policy.

Bassam Tibi, a professor of International Relations in Goettigen, Germany and an authority on Arab nationalism and Islamic Fundamentalism, spoke about the clash of civilizations of which "Operation Iraqi Freedom," as the war is known, is only one instance. As an Arab born in Syria and a faithful Muslim, Tibi is "deeply concerned about the need to establish democratic institutions in the Arab world and believes that failing to democratize (it) will intensify the conflict," Whitfield said.

Unlike Brown, Whitfield does not feel the AMST 156b curriculum deserved more than a peripheral addition of war topics and material. "I'm hired to teach the material that students have signed up for," he said, "and there are plenty of opportunities outside of the classroom for serious engagement with contemporary events."

Moreover, even though Whitfield's course has served as a venue for edification and discussion of the war, he does not feel it is his role as a teacher to direct such dialogue. "These are matters on which I have an opinion as a citizen," he said, "but I don't feel it is appropriate to either challenge or reinforce views in a setting in which I have some measure of authority but not scholarly expertise."



Social awareness

While scholarly authority to teach the war may only be self-evident in the politics department, Professor Susan Kahn (ANTH) has also approached the topic in lecture and discussion.

Coincidentally, during the week that war was declared, students of her course, (ANTH 118b), were assigned to read an ethnography of an Iraqi village. "So we couldn't help but talk about the ironies and implications for village (population)," Kahn said.

Developing on the inadvertent incorporation of current events, Kahn devoted a class to the history of Iraq, in order to give her students an "understanding of the kind of micro level socio-processes in Islamic society - whether daily negotiations over marriage or modernity," Kahn said.

Kahn says her goal as a professor is limited to exposing the peculiarities and social experiences of daily life, which in turn clarify students' attitudes toward the issues inherent in the war. "I'm very aware that this is an anthropology course," Kahn said, "And while you can't disentangle politics from culture, presenting the dilemmas of Middle East life humanizes the political conflict."

Like Whitfeild and Brown, Kahn said she has no interest in propagandizing one political view over another and no desire of indoctrinating her students. But while she hosts pro/anti war discussion, Kahn hopes the "students are sensitized to the implication of war for families and individuals."

From historical introspection to cultural analysis to a review of political strategy, teaching the war lends itself to a myriad of courses, no matter how indirect their relevance. Whether via opinion-laden discussion or objective instruction, the classroom is a unique resource for a student and a citizen. Jordana Singer '04 said the material covered in PHIL 114b has taught her "that all news sources and reasons for going to war are biased."

"Unfortunately," she added, "rather than guide my opinion in one direction or another, it has contributed to a standstill."

Mira Elias '06, a student in POL 168b is satisfied to be informed rather than guided by Brown. "I think in a class like American Foreign Policy the professor is absolutely obligated to talk about current events, because you're watching the subject you are studying come to life," she said. "The classroom is a great forum because you get a variety of ideas and debate, and you can ask questions that you might not otherwise get answered."

And in using the classroom setting for imparting and analyzing current events, the material may straddle both practical and philosophical grounds. "It's necessary to have a good understanding of what's happening to look at the details in a philosophical context," Brown said, "but we must address the philosophical details with fidelity to what's happening on the ground.