Soon after the September 11th terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, students returned to the UO for the fall term.

The mood on campus was quiet and thoughtful. Much as the rest of the United States, we were and still are working to understand a world dramatically changed. In the past several months, I have observed a sense of patriotism, in the best sense of the word, on campus--not an unquestioning blind loyalty to country, but rather, a deep appreciation for and a strong commitment to the values and principles that define democracy and a free society.

This patriotism has manifested itself in a variety of ways.

It has poured out in the newly reverent singing of the national anthem before football games in Autzen Stadium. Anne Dhu McLucas, dean of the School of Music, noted in a recent column in The Register-Guard, "The students in our marching band, often benignly ignored during the playing of the National Anthem, now report the thrill of hearing some 40,000 voices singing with genuine emotion, and mostly in tune!"

It has been considered and reconsidered by the hundreds of faculty, students and community members who have attended lectures and discussions organized by the "September 11th Committee," an ad hoc committee of faculty and students.

It has been pushed and prodded by classes all over campus filled with students struggling to answer the myriad of questions thrust upon us by the attacks and the country's response.

Tim Gleason, Dean

This commitment to exploring the meaning of a free society has taken place in conjunction with the unsettling awareness that no one knows when the United States' war on terrorism will end. All indications are that it will be long, and it will define at least the first part of the 21st century. History tells us that freedom of the press and freedom of speech are frequently among the first casualties of war, and undoubtedly, this war will place great stresses on freedom of the press and other civil liberties. It will test the ability of the government, the press and the public to preserve the individual rights that are the foundation of a free society.

The Bush administration's early policy toward press coverage of the war is discouraging. Hodding Carter III, president and CEO of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and a former State Department spokesman, recently told newspaper publishers that a set of principles and coverage guidelines agreed to by the Pentagon and media chiefs following the Persian Gulf War have been "violated repeatedly" during the current operations. The first legal challenges have been filed and more are sure to follow.

Drawing the line between national security and freedom of the press is one of the most difficult challenges we face in wartime. It is easy to establish the two broad positions: The press must be free to report to the public about the war effort. The government must have the power to deny the press access to information and to censor the publication of information that would genuinely threaten the war effort. None but the most rabid absolutists would deny the merits of either general proposition.

Of course, the challenge is not in the broad principles, but in the details. Prohibiting the publication of information that clearly will place troops in imminent danger is the easy case. But in an unconventional war, where access to the information has been severely limited--not only do we not know where troops are, but how many are there--and gathering the information firsthand can be deadly--eight reporters have been killed inside Afghanistan so far--the cases will be more difficult. To serve the public interest in national security and in freedom of the press requires us to resist infringement on the values of an open society and the importance of an informed public. At the same time, we must recognize the legitimate interest in national security.

The free press issues raised in the war on terrorism are a major focus in my winter communication law class and are being addressed in many other classes here in the School. Our goal will not be to tell students how to think about the issues but to give them the tools to evaluate them for themselves.