Last week, I met with students and faculty who had circulated a statement of concern about the tone of public discourse following the events of Sept. 11. They received many signatures in support and encouraged others to write letters explaining why they agreed with the views expressed in the statement. They asked me, as president of the university, to speak against the militaristic tone of what they see as the dominant national rhetoric. I was impressed by the thoughtfulness of the statement and the many supporting letters, which I have read carefully--but I found myself unable to sign the statement. Let me explain.
There are two different issues here. One is the specific position taken by the petitioners against the use of military force. The other is the call for open discourse, as befits a democratic nation. I agree strongly with the second view; I cannot agree with the first, but by providing my reasons for holding this opinion, I hope to encourage others to express their own perspectives.
The most prominent theme in the letters was that "violence begets violence." Therefore, it was argued, our nation should refrain from responding with force to these violent attacks. It is surely true that the use of violence in some contexts can engender a horrific cycle of increasing violence; calls for revenge motivated only by the desire to get back at those who hurt you, blindly, without thinking about consequences, are very likely to be met with counter-revenge.
However, in my view, the people who orchestrated the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are not in the least likely to respect or respond to non-violence. I would argue that we are currently in a situation where violence indeed begets violence, but in a different way: If the violence of Sept. 11 goes unchecked, it begets yet more violence from those who originally launched it, emboldened in a murderous cycle of their own making. Thus, I believe that in this instance only some kind of forceful response can put an end to violence.
I am sadly convinced that if we refrain from ANY use of force, the inevitable consequence will be more and more terrorist attacks on our nation and around the world. I have not yet heard a strategy for how peaceful responses might render future attacks of this sort unlikely; I look forward to hearing this part of the argument articulated more fully in the coming days.
Some authors of the letters were particularly concerned about the possibility that thousands of innocent civilians might be killed in other nations as a result of our acts of reprisal. I share that concern and hope that our military response will be targeted at those who have been directly involved in planning and sponsoring these deeds and to government officials who have harbored them. The force we use must not be disproportionate to the damage inflicted on us, and strong efforts must be made to avoid inflicting harm on innocent people.
This is not just an American tragedy, nor should there be just an American response. Many people and their governments see this moment as a new awakening to the somber dimensions of an unprecedented global struggle against terrorism. Hundreds of citizens of other nations were killed in the World Trade Center, and in almost every country there was revulsion and pity in response to this assault on our common humanity. We must act with allies and with international organizations, not just as an embattled superpower; we must continue to move with clear diplomatic aims and consultations, consistent with international law.
We should also ensure that our discussions are broad, respectful and attentive, and protect the freedom and openness that makes this society an object of admiration and affection, as well as envy and hatred, around the world. In the wake of the tragedy, I hope we will become a nation more attuned to our place among nations, not quite so ready to assert arrogantly the dominance of our own national interests, narrowly defined. We need to educate ourselves about the causes of terrorism and understand better the complex attitudes toward the United States around the world. Although I believe that military action is needed, it is clear that military action alone cannot and will not address the roots of the problems that led to Sept. 11.
All these points, and many others, need to be argued forcefully in the weeks and months ahead. Duke is well-placed to help focus and advance these discussions, not only on campus but in our city, with our alumni, and in national venues. We have many faculty members with expertise in pertinent areas bearing on America's current challenges--faculty who are appearing on TV, on radio and in print, contributing their voices to the growing public discourse. I am glad that several forums have been planned by the Sanford Institute for Public Policy and other campus groups to help air perspectives, share information, and promote debate. We hope to share these forums with townspeople and alumni.
Out of such conversations and debates can come a richer understanding of the ethical, political, economic, historical and cultural issues at stake and a more robust education for everyone we can reach--and for those whose decisions will affect us all.
Nan Keohane is president of Duke University.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.