Letter From the Editor: Resolution Is Not Representative

Those words struck me as I read them for the first time on the office door of a Pitzer professor. I read each of the names of the writers, scholars, activists, and celebrities who stood up and said to the government: Do not wage your unjust war in our names. I was inspired. That simple poster clarified my feelings about the then impending invasion of Iraq. I did not want the government to invade Iraq, but I also did not want the government to do this in the name of American freedom and all Americans. Not In Our Name was a statement that we do not support this war and that we do not want all Americans lumped into a homogenous group that supports the war; Congress giving President Bush war powers did not represent us. At least, that is what Not In Our Name meant to me.

When I first heard that an anti-war resolution had been introduced in Senate, I did not know how to feel. I am a supporter of the peace movement, I have always stood firmly against the war, and I agree with most of the resolution's claims, but something about it did not sit right with me. I talked to the authors about their reasons for creating it and read the arguments against the resolution posted on dining hall tables. Some student asserted that a referendum was an appropriate use of the democratic process to express our views as a community. Others contended that Senate had no jurisdiction over this type of resolution, and that a vote against the resolution did not have to be a vote in favor of war. While I found these arguments interesting, my objection stemmed from a more holistic view of the resolution. I did not want the majority to make a universal claim of being against the war when it was by no means a universal position.

I am leery of a resolution that declares the beliefs of the Associated Students of Pomona College - all of us. If the resolution were to pass, how many students would echo similar sentiments to those expressed by Not In Our Name? When the Associated Students of Pomona College speak out as group in an anti-war proclamation, the proclamation is effectually made in the names of all of the students. The Associated Students of Pomona College is not Senate, it's not a board, it is all of us.

So, after Senate did vote to make it a referendum on the ballot, the referendum did pass 339-307. With less than half of the Associated Students of Pomona College voting, this contentious resolution passed by only 22 votes. Now we have situation in which a small majority of votes has approved a declaration of the opinions of the Associated Students of Pomona College. The declaration clearly does not speak for everyone. Further clarifying this point is the fact that if the students who voted against the resolution had simply refrained from voting on it at all, the resolution could not have passed because it would not have had the 400 vote minimum required to pass a referendum.

As a community, we students have a duty to respect the rights of others to their own opinions. We can engage one another in dialogue without overriding the minority position. For example, the authors could have offered the resolution as a petition to be signed by as many members of the student body as chose to sign it. A petition would have provided a more accurate picture of how many students really supported the sentiments of the resolution as separate from those who simply did not want the resolution to be passed as a declaration of the beliefs of the students as a whole. Moreover, since individuals would sign their own names to the petition, students who did not choose to sign it would not feel alienated by being spoken for. While I respect the thought and effort that went into creating the anti-war resolution, and even agree with many of its points, I do not believe that a blanket statement applied to all students -especially when the resolution passed by such a slim margin - is especially productive in forging critical discussion or respectful of the beliefs of others.