Immediately after the terrorist attacks of September, the RPI campus came together to mourn, remember, and condemn the attack on our freedom. Four hours after the first plane crashed into the north tower, President Jackson addressed the campus. Action was taken, classes were cancelled, the acts were condemned, and the community was asked to pray for the survivors. Hours later, the Student Senate passed a resolution that received television news coverage, and the campus gathered in remembrance of the victims in the days following.
We leaned on the leadership of the Institute because they offered leadership in a time of crisis. From the president’s example, others felt comfortable that they too could stand up and take action like the Student Senate.
But one month goes by and where do we stand? The campus has remembered and mourned, but is now searching for answers, still seeking a greater understanding of America and its relation to the world.
Today there is nothing to lean on, nothing to butress us in our search for answers. What is the Institute doing now? Where has it been explictly stated that the faculty and staff can freely express their views without fear of reprisal?
Although the campus has seen a number of forums and an outside lecturer address issues that we all face, they have come from the grassroots level. The Civil Liberties forum, the Bernstein lecture, and the Racial Profiling Forum were organized by student groups and, in one case, with help from some brave members of the RPI faculty. For those that could effectively lead and educate, fear of losing their jobs became paralyzing because some of their colleagues around the nation who had spoken out already had.
Across the nation universities are sponsoring and faculty are leading teach-ins on the events of the September 11. They are fulfilling their purpose as universities. Are we?
To have "global reach and global impact" in times of uncertainty, an institution must lead and educate not only its campus community, but also its surrounding com-munity. Unless the senior leadership of the Institute—the president, provost, chief of staff, vice presidents, the Faculty Senate,
and deans of the five schools—set a tone which promotes tolerance and explictly sanctions free and open discussions then the blind will continue to be led blindly.
