It wasn't Doug Archibald's first teach-in. At Cornell University in the 1960s, Archibald, then a young politically liberal (and to some, radical) English professor, was a regular at panel discussions on the Vietnam War. In April, in his last semester at Colby before retirement, he organized another teach-in, this time on the war in Iraq. "I was surprised that I wasn't jaded about it," Archibald said, "and the students didn't seem to feel it was the resurrection of something old-fashioned."

The teach-in, held in Lorimer Chapel, might have sparked fleeting feelings of déjà vu for some faculty members who took part, but once under way the event didn't feel like a throwback at all. It felt new and important--the responsible thing to do in the face of a controversial war. It felt like the right thing for people at a liberal arts college to do.

Quickly planned (Archibald noted that e-mail makes light work of what was a heavier task in the 1960s), the teach-in panel was an interesting mix. In addition to Archibald, panelists were Debra Campbell (religion), Sandy Maisel (government), Rob Weisbrot (government), Paul Josephson (history), Ken Rodman (government), Walter Hatch (government) and Joe Reisert (government). A couple of hundred students, staff and other faculty filled the pews, listened attentively and posed thoughtful and knowledgeable questions. These students had done their homework.

The presenters cited some heavy-hitters, from Thomas Merton to Machiavelli. The majority of the speakers were opposed to the war, though their opposition ranged from vehement to moderate. Defending the Bush administration's justification for pre-emptive war, Reisert found more support from students than from his colleagues.

But this forum did more than affirm the respective positions of liberals and conservatives. It juxtaposed different views and perspectives about a matter of vital interest. It offered an opportunity to see faculty offer differing but well-reasoned arguments. It was like baseball's interleague play--you were able to see players from parallel leagues (in this case departments) go head to head.

Well, sort of. Actually, the atmosphere was collegial. The discussion was informative, not inflammatory. Television panel shows could learn something from a forum conducted with civility? and without empty rhetoric. The public could, too.

That was the comment of a fellow named Peter Sirois who stood up near the end of the teach-in. He wasn't connected to Colby, other than by the fact that he had seen a notice of this event on the Internet. He worked in a paper mill in Madison, he said, and his paratrooper son was, at that very moment, bound for combat in Iraq. The man said he felt there was no justification for the war, though he supported his soldier son. He also asked if there was a way forums like the teach-in could be brought to the community beyond Colby. He said he'd like his co-workers in the mill to hear what these professors and students had to say.

Funny he should mention it. In this issue you'll see that plans are well underway for Colby's Center for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement. The center will focus on public policy and international affairs as well as communities and civic engagement. It appears that what Colby does well now--concentrating powerful intellects from around the world on solutions to political and social problems--it will do even better in the near future. Stay tuned.