Students Back Response

A majority of Harvard students support the United States taking military action against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks on the nation, but a large minority are unwilling to participate in such actions themselves, a recent Crimson poll shows.

Support for military action drops significantly when respondents were asked whether military action should be taken if innocent people would be killed.

And despite strong support for military action in general, only 38 percent of undergraduates said they were willing to serve in the armed forces and take part in an attack against those responsible if called upon to serve.

Political party affiliation played a significant role in Harvard students’ opinions, with the majority of Republicans willing to serve in the military if called upon and the majority of Democrats saying they were unwilling to do so.

The Crimson surveyed 406 undergraduates over three days in a randomized telephone survey. The margin of error for the survey is plus or minus four percent, with a wider margin when responses are sorted by political affiliation.

While 69 percent of Harvard undergraduates said they support taking military action against whoever is responsible for the attacks that killed thousands in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania, that percentage drops to 28 percent if innocent people would be killed during any military strike.

Nationally, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll conducted on Sept. 14 and 15, 85 percent of adults favor taking military action, with 75 percent still supporting action even if innocent people are killed.

And when asked whether they would support going to war against a nation harboring those responsible for the attack, Harvard students were split 49 percent in favor to 39 percent against.

Ganesh N. Sitaraman ’03, who is also a Crimson editor, said he supports targeting specific individuals rather than going to war.

“In this kind of situation, the people responsible...are these small, little groups of people from terrorist organizations,” he said. “It seems to me the right policy in this case would be to go undercover and infiltrate, and go and kill all of those people rather than, say, declaring war on an entire nation.”

The campus was divided on whether U.S. law should be changed to allow the government to seek out and assassinate people in foreign countries who commit terrorist attacks in the U.S. and elsewhere. Fifty percent of those polled were in favor of changing the law, while 39 percent were not.

And despite the recent broadening of federal surveillance powers, only a minority of students—18 percent—were willing to allow government agencies to monitor telephone calls and e-mails of ordinary Americans on a regular basis to reduce the threat of terrorism.

“We can’t let one attack by terrorists decrease our civil liberties,” said Gabriela Gonzalez ’03. “If we did, then we’d just be caving into what [the terrorists] want.”

But some students disagreed, saying that some sacrifices on civil liberties should be made in order to have greater safety.

“There’s a trade-off between the safety and the fear, and at this point I’d prefer the safety,” said Michal D. Wang ’05. “As a citizen of a major city that’s open to attack, I would much prefer not getting nuked than having privacy.”

While campus opinion largely reflected those of most Americans in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Harvard students had stronger reservations on when the U.S. should take military action.

Maame A. A. Banful ’05 is part of the minority that does not support any type of military action.

“I’m from Africa and miltary action, it never works,” Banful said. “Those responsible for whatever action, they’re never going to be touched. It’s going to be innocent people who get in the way.”

But Susannah P. Morse ’03 defended the need for some sort of limited military action, considering the severity of the attacks.

“It’s important to bring justice,” Morse said.

The Political Divide

Much of the nation has become united since the Sept. 11 attacks, with a surge of patriotism causing most—including members of Congress—to put aside political differences.

National polls show that most Democrats, Republicans and independents support the same policies in response to the terrorist attacks.

But unlike the rest of the country, this weekend’s Crimson poll shows that political affiliation made a major difference in the opinions of Harvard students.

While 65 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of independents were in favor of military action against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, a near-unanimous 94 percent of Republicans favored military action.

Whether innocent people would be killed in any military action greatly affected the opinions of Democrats and independents, however, with 60 and 54 percent respectively saying they opposed military action if that were the case.

In contrast, only 28 percent of Republicans were against military action if innocent people would be killed.

And while only 42 percent of Democrats supported taking military action if it meant going to war with another nation harboring those responsible for the attacks, 50 percent of independents and an even greater number of Republicans—76 percent—said they would support war with another nation harboring terrorists.

Marcie B. Bianco ’02, president of the Harvard College Democrats, said she was surprised by the large difference of opinion between party affiliations, but said it most likely traces to basic issue positions, with Democrats less supportive of military action than Republicans.

“[President] Bush is acting like he’s Captain America, going on television and telling Americans that there has to be a strong military response,” Bianco said. “[But] we don’t know who we’re going to war against yet. There’s no specific thing to target, except terrorism.”

But Jason P. Brinton ’00-’02, former president of the Harvard Republican Club, said he believes President Bush has not responded hastily in calling for military action, saying the administration first sought diplomatic solutions as a response.

“Diplomacy is always preferred,” Brinton said. “But when it fails, you have to have a military that is prepared to act.”

But only 32 percent of Democrats and 42 percent of independents said they would be willing to serve in the armed forces if called up to service. In contrast, 56 percent of Republicans said they would be willing to serve in a military operation.

Brinton said he wishes that all would be willing to serve in the military, no matter what political affiliation.

“I think it’s unfortunate that so many are complacent,” Brinton said. “I think as a country, we should all be willing to fight for the democracy we enjoy.”

But despite the numbers on campus revealed in The Crimson’s poll, Brinton said he believes that the country is still united against the “cancer” of terrorism.

“This is a time for unity, not partisanship,” Brinton said. “I think we’ve seen that across the country.”

—Staff writer Juliet J. Chung can be reached at jchung@fas.harvard.edu.

—Staff writer Imtiyaz H. Delawala can be reached at delawala@fas.harvard.edu.