Almost 200 people came to Alumni Hall last night for the fourth and final panel discussion of the consequences of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Moderated by history professor Vernon Takeshita, the Dickey Center-sponsored panel consisted of four faculty members with a variety of backgrounds. The presentation was intended "to draw wisdom from the past, and provide clarity for the present," Takeshida said.
The first speaker, Annelise Orleck, discussed the potential for new forms of intolerance and repeals of constitutional rights in the name of national emergency. Such crises historically "give people license to act on the occurrence of racism that runs deep in this country," Orleck said.
Angelina Means of the government department said that some good may come of new government surveillance, in that it would focus on individual perpetrators and not on groups. Most importantly, Means addressed the further repeal of immigrant rights that might arise after the attacks, since many see foreigners as those responsible for the terror.
Government professor Stephen Brooks discussed the potential economic repercussions of the attacks.
Though he said that the world is entering a period of worldwide economic slowdown that might spiral out of control, he also said that greater free trade might counteract such trends as the world tries to create allies in traditionally non-market-oriented nations like Russia.
"Economic globalization is reversible -- it can be stopped -- but it will take a lot more than [the attacks] to do it," he said.
Last to speak was government professor Allan Stam, who spoke about the challenges facing the US. and its allies in the war on terrorism. Most important, he said, is maintaining public support at home, although he argued that the nation must also work to maintain its tenuous alliances with Muslim nations.
Stam also discussed the problems related to a sustained war in central Asia. "We need to be able to operate openly in Afghanistan, but we cannot do that if the Taliban remains in power," he said.
Audience members raised many questions after the panelists' speeches were done. While many raised such questions as the future roles of Russia and China in the fight against terrorism, the most controversial question came from Hanover resident David Lasagna, who asked, "What about peace on terrorism instead of war on terrorism?" Though many in the audience sneered at the question, some others congratulated him for making the point as the panel concluded.
The panel was thought by many in the audience to be a success. "I thought it was well-presented, and it was actually more balanced" than previous discussions, Steve Haidar '05 said.
