‘Teach-In’ on Terrorism Is an Echo of the ‘60s

The students were lined up, this time not for a movie or a concert, but for an experience reminiscent of another era: a “teach-in” about an escalating war.

This war, of course, is against terrorism, not Communists in Vietnam. But students at USC were borrowing the format of their parents’ generation to educate themselves about the domestic and international crisis suddenly facing the nation.

More than 300 students showed up for last Wednesday’s teach-in at Taper Hall. Some stood in aisles and in the back of the lecture hall for an hour and a half. Others skipped classes to hear the university’s expert professors on the Middle East, economics, terrorism and international relations talk about the Sept. 11 attacks, and the aftermath.

“Before, it was: ‘Where should we go eat? What should we wear?’ ” said Steven Lamy, director of the USC International Relations Department, which organized the event. But now, “They want to know how and why did this happen? ‘Why didn’t I know anything about this? Who are these people?’ ”

The popularity of scholars who have studied and taught such issues for decades has surged. Students are eager to discuss world politics. And teach-ins like the one at USC are being organized at colleges and universities across the country to help quell this craving for information.

Teach-ins in the Vietnam era began much like the one at USC did last week, said Eric Newhall, a professor of American studies at Occidental College. Professors and experts on Southeast Asia used the forums as a way to educate the public about what was going on.

But as the Vietnam War got longer, more troops were sent and more lives were lost, people began to heatedly question U.S. policy. Graduate students and undergraduates, rather than faculty, began organizing teach-ins.

“By the end of ‘60s, there was more political demonstration against U.S. policy, and less teaching,” Newhall said.

During the present crisis, he said, the teach-in “is more informative. The tone is different.”

The panel members at USC last week included experts on the Middle East, Russia, U.S. security, political economics, international relations and the CIA.

“I never thought anything this huge would ever happen,” said Jessica Davis, 23. “I read the newspaper every day. When I do homework, I leave the TV on mute, just in case something happens--just in case we go to war.”

Since the attacks, Steve Grubisic, 23, said he wakes up to morning television news. On the drive to work, his radio is tuned to news. In between classes, he checks the Internet for news.

“Personally, I don’t know enough about [terrorism],” said Grubisic. “People want to understand why it could happen, why it did happen.”

Students’ questions are endless: What kind of war can we expect? Why didn’t the terrorists claim responsibility for the attacks? Should we limit media coverage because it may aid the terrorists’ agenda? Will there be a draft? Are we safe?

“These kids are saying: ‘Oh my God, the war is here,’ ” said Lamy, a panel moderator who teaches an introductory international relations class with more than 300 students. “The next day [after the attacks], students had hundreds of questions. . . . It’s a big class. Usually kids don’t talk, but I couldn’t shut them up.”

Davis said most students went to the teach-in hoping to leave feeling more secure. That didn’t happen.

“We were all well-informed when we left, but not reassured that we were going to be safe or that this is going to end any time soon,” she said. Professors’ opinions may have been enlightening, she said, but they were not comforting.

During the teach-in, one student asked: “You all agree something is going to happen. What sort of war can we expect to see?”

Ron Steel, an international relations professor, responded: “This is a war that terrorists cannot win. But it is equally important to understand they also can never fully be defeated.”

He added: “Wars have victories, and that’s not going to happen. Wars have solutions. That’s not going to happen. . . . The war on terrorism? This is a fantasy.”

Not exactly the response students hoped for. Most are still hoping all the drama will just go away, Lamy said.

At USC, teach-ins are just the beginning. At a gathering Monday, university officials announced a broad, 18-month initiative to help students and the public understand politically motivated violence. The university will draw on experts ranging from psychologists to political scientists, ethicists to economists, to explore the roots and ramifications of political violence.

If history is any guide, the format of teach-ins may change as time goes on, Newhall said.

“There’s going to be increasing discussion of what’s the appropriate response,” Newhall said. “I do see people beginning to say: ‘Hold it, let’s not begin carpet-bombing of Afghanistan. Let’s focus on the perpetrators of the actions.’ I think that’s where the national debate is going to occur.”

Times staff writer Rebecca Trounson contributed to this story.