Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, February 7, 1991 TAG: 9102070164
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-2 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: JOE TENNIS/ SPECIAL TO THE ROANOKE TIMES & WORLD-NEWS
DATELINE: RADFORD LENGTH: Medium
But since the threat of the war in the Middle East became imminent last fall, the outspoken, long-haired 19-year-old has returned to "the college community," as he calls it, to speak at peace rallies and candlelight vigils at the campus on several occasions.
Ehmke showed up Tuesday night at a cramped meeting room in Davis Hall and received a round of applause at a student-faculty panel discussion about the Persian Gulf war when he spoke from the audience.
"At rallies, I've been called a hippie freak," Ehmke told an emotionally charged audience of more than 90. Emotions were strong as students and faculty sought answers to questions they had about the war - something that was promised in publicity about the meeting. "The majority of the people around here are pro-war . . . but that doesn't mean we don't need a forum to talk about pro-peace ideas," Ehmke said.
Mike Maniates, an assistant professor of geography who spoke on the panel, said the war will not buy the United States better security for the money and lives being spent in the Middle East. Instead, he said, "We bought a lot of insecurity."
Adrienne Birecree, an associate professor of economics, figured the war would be paid for by reductions in social programs. "People who have the best ability to pay . . . are not the ones who will pay for this war," she said.
Maniates said winning the war would be worse than losing. That's because American troops would be left in Kuwait after a victory, he said, and the presence of those troops would fuel anti-Western sentiment. "I can't see anyway in the next five to 10 years our reputation will be enhanced there. I see much more hatred of the U.S."
Moira Baker, an assistant professor of English who opened the two-hour discussion said the language used to describe the war and the "suspicious" censorship by the government works to "cover up and conceal the truth. . . . We can't have democracy when the government uses language to disguise reality by giving it another name."
Baker's comments inspired one Radford student, Suzanne Hallett, to charge the panel with being biased. Hallett, a freshman from Maine, said a person who was more in favor of current U.S. actions in the Persian Gulf should have been included on the panel. "They have some good points that should have been made," she said.
Hallett also said she thought the coverage of the war is "excellent" and that some censorship is needed.
Baker countered Hallett, saying that the truth about the number of military casualties on all sides needs to be released so people can make "moral choices."
Kelly Blake, a sophomore from Ellicott City, Md., who spoke on the panel, called the media coverage "frustrating" because it doesn't "get to the reality of death."
Another panel member, Jim Unnever, an associate professor of sociology and anthropology, said an audience's willingness to consume censored war coverage is rooted in a reluctance to question authority. "How many of us question our parents and get away with it?" he asked the group.
The panel discussion was not advertised as being anti-war, said organizer Amy Crouse, a Radford junior from Baltimore.
Ehmke added: "But instead of preaching to the choir, we managed to get our points across to people on the pro-war side."
by CNB