Most events have been planned by anti-war factions, but an increasing number of activists on both sides have congregated at planned events and spontaneous gatherings.
At a recent teach-in, "Don't Attack Iraq: A Teach-in on the Ethics and Politics of an Invasion of Iraq," 35 College Republicans expressed disapproval by holding signs and questioning speakers.
Members of anti-war groups appeared at the Oct. 9 lecture by Mark Regev, chief spokesman for the Embassy of Israel. Protesters made audible comments of dissent throughout his speech, although it did not address the conflict with Iraq.
Graduate student Danny De Vries said that although teach-in attendance has been high, the events have failed to facilitate an educational debate of multiple perspectives.
"People are giving each other monologues instead of dialogues," he said. "Instead of holding forums that are all anti-war or all pro-war, these events should feature both sides at the same time to attract a larger audience."
History Professor Michael Hunt, who spoke at September's faculty teach-in, said teach-in organizers were unable to find an available faculty member willing to take the pro-war stance.
He added that campus discussion seems far more more one-sided than during the Persian Gulf War.
Although Hunt said the University's strong anti-war stance might reflect a liberal bias within academia, he said it also reflects a pervasive doubt that war with Iraq has nothing to do with political position. "Some of the sharpest critics have been Republicans," he said.
But Steve Russell, editor of Carolina Review, said the near silence of conservatives is not a new phenomenon and should not be viewed as a lack of support. "In general conservatives don't do a lot of active protesting, especially not with a conservative president in office," he said.