By Mary Farrell
A few months ago, we at the Catholic Worker were alerted to a project of the Alumni Board at Saint Mary’s University. The desire of the board was to honor SMU alumni who have served in the United States military with a memorial on campus. With some of us being SMU alumni and others concerned on behalf of peace and justice, we believed it was necessary to become more involved with this veteran’s memorial project. Our concern was that it did not reflect the Catholic and Lasallian mission of this Christian Brothers University. The design of the monument included five arches representing each branch of the armed services, as well as a “design element that will strike a beam of sunlight on an inscribed plaque of those who have died in the military…on the11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month” (Veteran’s Day). Our Catholic and Christian conviction is that this design seemed to honor the institution of war rather than the veterans who made personal sacrifices.
We wanted to take a stand on this issue, and learned that some members of the faculty had attempted to do so in the past. As we spoke with some of our regular student volunteers, their interest was striking as well. Our community began our work by writing letters of concern to Brother Louis DeThomasis and other university personnel. As word spread among concerned students, staff, faculty and alumni, we began holding regular meetings in the living room of Bethany House where we gathered our thoughts together and discussed action steps; a blog was set up to post letters by those who wrote to the university. As a result of our community letters, we were given an invitation to meet with the university president and his staff to talk about the project and voice our concerns. The students attended a separate meeting with the president during the same week.
In the meetings we asked that the university consider a moratorium on the project until more people were included in the decision making process. We believed that widening the circle of people who were informed would give the university a broader picture of what people think about this controversial subject. The discussion continued with Br. Louis assuring us that SMU is not glorifying war with this monument and only wishes to honor those who served. Even so, the fear is that the monument could be perceived as a war memorial. We felt it necessary to highlight the fact that this monument may not reflect a Christian witness for a non-violent response to personal and world conflict. We expressed a hope that the university would choose to foster a culture of peace, especially at a place where students are learning how to live out the gospel message of how to love one’s enemies. We also pointed out that there have been many examples of people who have worked or studied at SMU who have chosen to volunteer their time to serve people who live without the basic necessities of life. Brother James Miller, a farmer and teacher, gave his life for the people of Guatemala with whom he witnessed brutal oppression and murder carried out by a military dictatorship during the 1980’s. Brother Miller serves as a clear example of the peacemakers that we would like to see memorialized on campus.
We were grateful for this opportunity to meet in person with those who are making decisions regarding this monument. As a result, Br. Louis proposed a forum on campus to hear from the university community regarding this project, as well as allowing our group to make a presentation to the Board of Trustees. We thanked Br. Louis for responding to our concerns with these two proposals.
Both the forum and the meeting with the Board took place in the last month. The forum was well attended by SMU staff and students and the university heard from many people who expressed their concerns on both sides of the issue. An artist pointed out that the arches in the design represented triumphalism, a theologian said it would be hard for her to teach her Catholic Social Teaching class if the monument was erected on campus and an Iraq veteran was disappointed by the opposition because he believes in the just war theory.
A small group of students, alumni and faculty represented our interests at the Board of Trustees meeting. They expressed our views that a moratorium would allow time for more discussion and reflection on how this monument might affect the university permanently.
The final result from both of these efforts was not to grant a moratorium but to completely redesign the monument; the pillars were abandoned and were replaced with a glass monument etched with an olive branch with an inscription stating “Peace through Service”. The design is an improvement and we thank those who took our concerns to heart; however we still take issue with this quote as well as one cited from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Those who sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contributed to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.”
These words taken out of the context of the surrounding paragraphs, as well as the words “peace through service” erroneously insinuate that peace can be obtained through military force. Our Christian faith teaches us otherwise. A letter has been written to the Board of Trustees and other University officials to acknowledge our gratitude for their time and energy, and to explain our concerns with the new wording and overall lack of communal involvement in the redesign process. We hope that there is still room for input and dialogue on this issue.
In all of this, we give thanks for this learning opportunity and for all who gave of their conviction and passion. It was a joy to be in the midst of the SMU students who invested their spiritual and intellectual energy into making their university campus a place where their voices were heard. It was truly an opportunity to learn from each other and to stand with each other. We were also grateful to discover that those with decision-making power opened their hearts and minds to a viewpoint that was different than their own.