Dr. Charles Murray, a political scientist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, came to Middlebury last Thursday to discuss his book Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.
It did not go well.
Murray was invited by the Middlebury student AEI chapter, and his talk was cosponsored (but not funded) by the Political Science department. The decision by the Political Science department to cosponsor the event was not universally supported on the Middlebury campus, nor even within the political science department itself, as chair Bert Johnson discusses here. Nonetheless, after extensive campus debate, the College administration remained committed to allowing Murray to speak, although they decided that only those with valid Middlebury i.d.’s would be allowed in Wilson Hall so as to prevent outsiders from shutting down his talk. Despite this precaution, as chronicled in numerous national news stories, Murray never got the chance to present his views before a live audience.
This was not for lack of commitment by the administration to upholding the College’s policies on free speech. At the start of the Murray event Middlebury communications director Bill Burger reminded students about College policies regarding protests and the right of speakers to be heard. Middlebury College President Laurie Patton also took the stage to note that while many – including her – did not agree with all of Murray’s research, the College was committed to upholding its policies regarding the free exchange of ideas. But when Murray was introduced, the student crowd erupted in a barrage of chants and sign waving designed to prevent Murray from speaking. They chanted, “Who is the enemy? White Supremacy!” and “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Charles Murray go away!” I was not able to get into the event due to long lines so, after lingering for some time watching the protests outside the event, I went back to my office to view the event on the Middlebury website. However, you can get a sense of just how quickly the event degenerated into mob rule in this YouTube video shot by Middlebury student Will DeGravio.
Additional video can be found on the Middlebury campus student newspaper website here.
After about 20 minutes, when it became clear that the students would not let Murray speak, administration officials escorted him to an adjoining room. There he was interviewed by my colleague Allison Stanger who pushed back against some of his research regarding the role of race and genes in intelligence and asked him to clarify his views on other issues, drawing in part on questions submitted by other faculty. Students were able to join the debate by asking Murray questions via twitter as well. The event was streamed live on the Middlebury College website and broadcast to the audience in Wilson Hall, but it was interrupted numerous times as fire alarms were pulled and students continued chanting slogans that were picked up by the audio feed. (It will be posted by the College on its news site sometime later.)
The chaos didn’t end after the interview concluded, however. When Murray, Stanger and Burger, accompanied by school security, attempted to leave the building and go to the car that would take them to dinner, a crowd formed to block their path. During the ensuing shoving, Stanger was grabbed by the hair and her neck twisted with such force she eventually went to the local hospital to be treated for whiplash. (She is home now and recovering.) Although they made it into the car, the crowd prevented them from easily leaving, with people leaning on the hood and climbing on top. Eventually, after nearly running over a stop sign someone had displaced in front of the car, they managed to break free and head toward the campus location for dinner. When they arrived, however, rumors began circulating that the raucous protesters were on their way to shut that down too, so the small dinner group relocated to a nearby private restaurant, where Murray dined and conversed with more than a dozen Middlebury students and faculty late into the night.
Judging by the dominant reaction online and among most of those with whom I have talked, the effort to block Murray’s speech is viewed as an ugly display of intolerance and violence, one that has made almost every national news outlet, and which has reignited debate regarding issues of free speech and ideological diversity on U.S. college campuses. At Middlebury, the repercussions of this event are still unfolding even as I write this post. In an email to the Middlebury community, President Patton apologized to Murray and Stanger for how they were treated, expressed her deep disappointment at the reception Murray received, and pointedly noted that “We will be responding in the very near future to the clear violations of Middlebury College policy that occurred inside and outside Wilson Hall.” It seems inevitable that disciplinary action of some sort will be taken against the rioters, although how and in what form remains to be seen. (If I happened to be the parents of some of those students caught on the numerous video recordings of their violating College rules by shutting down speech, I would be worried right now.) At dinner that night after the event, Murray noted that it was the worst demonstration he had ever encountered and that he feared for his safety. He later tweeted, “The Middlebury administration was exemplary. The students were seriously scary.” Amazingly, in a student-run blog site at Middlebury, someone posted the Orwellian claim that the protestors were the ones who had been assaulted by Burger and others. Their logic? That they had only blocked the sidewalk and stood in front of the car, but it was Burger and others who were the aggressors in trying to reach the car and drive away. Thus the protesters were the ones under assault. (Note. This is not, as far as I can tell, an example of satire, although I deeply wish it was.)
Clearly the student riot has left an ugly stain on Middlebury’s reputation, although it is too early to say how indelible it might be. One alumnus noted to me that while he still hoped his children would attend Middlebury, his wife was now dead set against the idea. I expect many others feel this way as well. How many depends, I assume, in part on how the College administration responds. In the short run, of course, the protests prevented those students who wished to engage with Murray from hearing him speak and, more importantly, it prevented them from pressing back against his research. Two days before Murray’s talk I spent my entire weekly politics luncheon discussing Murray’s research in the Bell Curve, and acquainting students with many of the critiques of his findings. My presentation was attended by a packed audience of students and local residents, and many of the students went away primed to do battle with Murray. A few of them, drawing in part on my slide presentation, put together a pamphlet outlining five criticisms of Murray’s argument in the Bell Curve, which they placed on every seat in Wilson Hall. Unfortunately, due to the actions of protesters, my students never had the opportunity to engage Murray beyond a few questions directed at him via Twitter. What’s worse, they now find themselves inaccurately characterized in media outlets as coddled, immature “snowflakes” and “liberal fascists” bent on promoting intolerance and hate.
The ability of a vocal minority of students to impose their will on the majority of their peers – and evidently to feel no compunction in doing so – raises some important questions regarding Middlebury College’s central mission and whether and to what degree it is in danger of slipping away. To be clear, as I noted above, not everyone was comfortable with the decision by the AEI student chapter to invite Murray in the first place, nor with the College’s choice not to rescind that invitation. Some of my colleagues felt strongly that allowing him to speak gave him a platform to spread views that they found racist and hurtful, and which many argue are based on shoddy research. Others disagreed, noting that Murray’s views as expressed in the Bell Curve were not particularly controversial among some experts even when they first came out. Moreover, they pointed out that he wasn’t even presenting that research this time around. Nonetheless, when it became clear that a group of students were determined to protest, I am told that administration officials reached out to them to negotiate how those protests might be conducted in a peaceful and appropriate manner consistent with Middlebury’s stated policy. It soon became clear, however, that the protesters would accept nothing less than a complete shutdown of Murray’s talk. This prompted the administration to develop the backup plan which they implemented when the students’ chanting prevent Murray from speaking.
Note that this is not the first controversial speaker we have invited to campus. In fact, Murray himself came to Middlebury to give a talk a few years back and was met with no overt opposition. So what, if anything, has changed since Murray’s previous visit? When asked this question by a Boston Globe reporter early today, I openly wondered whether Donald Trump’s election, and more importantly some of the College’s reaction to his victory, may have inadvertently appeared to license the kind of behavior we saw on Thursday. It may be, I speculated, that in reassuring students that we did not support the more inflammatory rhetoric that was a hallmark of Trump’s campaign, some students took that as a sign that speech which they felt was hurtful could and should be shut down. To repeat, this is pure speculation on my part, as I made clear to the reporter. But something seems to have changed to persuade a minority of the current generation of Middlebury students that if they don’t like what someone is saying, it is appropriate to make sure no one else hears it as well, regardless of whether they would like to. (Elsewhere I have pointed out that even Trump’s supporters did not agree with all that he said even though they voted for him. However, that distinction has sometimes been lost on a few of my students.)
In my public comments on social media regarding the Murray incident, I have stressed the need for dialogue to discuss why the disturbing effort to shut down speech occurred, and what lessons are to be learned. But I am increasingly worried that the time for dialogue has passed. It is understandable why some students may find Murray’s research findings offensive, although I also believe many protestors actually have almost no familiarity with what Murray actually wrote. It is less clear, however, why so many believe that the appropriate response was not to simply skip his talk, but instead to prevent others from hearing him and, in so doing, inadvertently give him the platform and national exposure they purportedly opposed. For some reason a vocal minority of Middlebury students now believes that if they find speech hurtful, it is their right and obligation to act on those feelings by shutting that speech down.
In his magisterial work On Liberty, John Stuart Mill wrote, “But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
It is necessary to consider separately these two hypotheses, each of which has a distinct branch of the argument corresponding to it. We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. (italics added.)”
It easy to blame those Middlebury students – and many do – for not fully understanding the importance, particularly at an institution of higher learning, of the free expression of ideas and the need to tolerate opposing views. (After all, Mill is a dead white male!) However, I wonder whether we, as faculty, should shoulder some – most – of the blame for their ignorance? Are we teaching students why we hold so strongly to these ideals? Perhaps if we spent as much time discussing the reason why even speech they view as hurtful should not be suppressed as we do explaining the College honor code, Thursday’s event might not have happened. If we do not explain to students what underlies the College’s rules regarding speech, how are they expected to understand why their actions last Thursday are viewed by so many, including almost every Middlebury student with whom I have talked, as abhorrent and unacceptable, and why some may face disciplinary action?
For understandable reasons the administration decided beforehand not to respond to the student protest with a heavy show of force, for fear of escalating the violence. To be sure, not everyone agrees with that decision. But President Patton has made it clear that this type of student rioting will not be tolerated going forward. Disciplining students, however, is in my view only the first step toward insuring that this unacceptable effort to suppress speech never blights Middlebury’s campus again. Somehow we, as an academic community, must teach students the reason why when confronted with what they sincerely believe to be hurtful speech the proper response is not to impose their views on everyone else by shutting that speech down. I am not sure the best way to do this. But, at the risk of appearing naive or hopelessly idealistic, or both, I am committed to trying. I hope you are too. Let the teaching begin!
Dr. Dickinson,
I don’t expect that there will be any punishment, beyond a slap on the wrist. I hold this opinion based on what has happened at other universities, especially Dartmouth and DePaul, and on the timing of the protest. By the time the investigation is competed, any senior protestor will probably have graduated. What punishment can the college place on a graduate? If the college can’t punish a graduate, some will claim that out of fairness none of the protestors should be punished. I have no problem if the college expels any student involved in the attack after the presentation, but I believe expelling the protestors inside the hall is too harsh; What other forms of punishment does the college have?
The number of students protesting has been estimated at 100. Is that just inside the hall or in total. The estimated number represents 4% of your student body, if that was just in the hall what percent of the student body approves of shutting speech they don’t like, 10%, 20%, 50%? The higher the number, the less likely any punishment will occur.
These are just the opinions of a person in flyover country, who fears what colleges and universities will be like for my grandchildren.
Hello denman516,
You pondered whether it would be acceptable to permit a Holocaust denier to speak on campus. My mother was a Holocaust survivor. Like me, she was also an attorney. Her last client (pro bono) before my family left communist Poland was her closest friend, who was facing a three year sentence for writing sarcastic verses about the Party leadership. I practiced civil rights law in the United States. Although my mother is no longer alive, I am certain that she would agree with me that the answer to that question–whether a Holocaust denier should be permitted to speak on campus–would be an unqualified “yes.” Although the First Amendment prohibits governmental suppression of free speech, and does not apply to private parties, the spirit of the First Amendment should be held inviolable especially in a university setting, where reason, not force, is the guiding principle in addressing speech with which we deeply disagree.
I see no parallel here with Vietnam War protesters, which someone mentioned, because universities are institutions of learning and debate, not military recruiting centers.
And as it has already been mentioned, attempting to censor a speaker only provides a larger platform for that speaker to air her or his views.
Students with signs who did not attempt to prevent Mr. Murray’s talk were present. Expelling all students who carried signs is even more excessive than preventing the speech, as bad as that was.
Thus far, one professor out of eight in the Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies department has signed on to the Statement of Principles that was published in The Wall Street Journal. I agree with every statement in that letter except the penultimate paragraph, which reads: “All our students possess the strength, in head and in heart, to consider and evaluate challenging opinions from every quarter.” Even the most reasonable professors in that department must be aware that if they signed the Statement of Principles, they would have no career options outside Middlebury. I have read my share of articles in the fields of gender studies, queer theory, etc., which I thought were parodies, but which, to my dismay, were meant seriously. Yet I just watched a TED talk by the Director of Middlebury’s GSFS Department that was engaging and thought-provoking. It was nothing like the ideological zealotry I had expected.
Everyone is unique, and should not be tarred by the same brush.
Mr. Murawski, I could not find any faculty member signatory to the Statement of Principles who identified as with the GSFS Dept. (although this may be a sub discipline within Sociology or other). I have a link to a spreadsheet that orders the signatories to the ‘Letter of Opposition’ (March 1) and the signatories to the ‘Statement of Principles’ (updated to this morning at 0800). https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B8lf90n41MdFTVh4bnBBbW1CZ28?usp=sharing
The take aways are; an estimated 1/3rd of the Middlebury faculty have signed the ‘SoP’ (87 of an estimated 270 faculty as of 0800 Mar 9 – approximately 30 signed since yesterday a.m.); five faculty signed both documents; the difference between the disciplines represented is significant for affiliations with ‘hard’ sciences and languages – much less so for ‘liberal’ studies and, remarkably, for ‘PolySci, Econ, American Studies’ (I would have expected these faculty to be interested in both the data and arguments put forth by Dr. Murray as directly addressing issues in their fields of study).
There is clearly a schism in the faculty and it will be interesting to see what efforts and progress are made in resolving what appears to be a fundamental schism.
John,
Thanks for you input. I would caution against conflating Middlebury’s academic departments, such as Political Science, with its academic programs, such as International Politics and Economics. Academic programs do not, as a rule, has their own faculty, but instead are staffed by faculty drawn from other departments. So, while some online blogs are noting that no one from IPE at Middlebury signed the academic principles statement, the fact is that both economics and political science professors have signed it, and many of them also teach in IPE. Still both you and Anthony Murawski raise an interesting empirical question: does support for the statement of principles contained here https://freeinquiryblog.wordpress.com/ significantly vary across academic disciplines, and if so, what explains this difference? Is it ideological? Different training? Different conceptions regarding what makes for effective teaching? Before we try to answer those questions, we need first to determine if in fact those differences exist. Toward that end, I’ve asked a research assistant to analyze the data. I’ll report the results in a separate blog post.
spoint out that
Prof. Dickinson, my spreadsheet shows the faculty as they are identified in the ‘SoP’ and I, somewhat arbitrarily, assigned these to ‘hard science’, ‘liberal science’, ‘language’ and an amalgam of ‘PolySci, Econ and American Studies’ – this last given my expectation of their particular interest in Dr. Murray’s research. I take your caution and look forward to other approaches to ‘parse’ the data and identify any useful distinctions. Thanks again for sponsoring a very useful (and civil) discussion forum.
Hi John
Your methodology appears to be a more reliable measure of departmental affiliation than what I’ve been seeing elsewhere, such as in this post: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/31574/ and I wanted to be sure my readers paid attention to the different ways academic affiliations are being discussed.
Matt,
I hope they’ll listen, I hope they’ll learn. But Don McLean said it best:
Starry, starry night
Portraits hung in empty halls
Frame-less heads on nameless walls
With eyes that watch the world and can’t forget
Like the strangers that you’ve met
The ragged men in ragged clothes
The silver thorn of bloody rose
Lie crushed and broken on the virgin snow
Now I think I know
What you tried to say to me
And how you suffered for your sanity
And how you tried to set them free
They would not listen, they’re not listening still
Perhaps they never will
Hey Matt, I’m an ’05 IPE major. I have a question for you that you might find awkward: do you think any professors could and should be fired for their role in abetting the protests? I’m thinking specifically of Linus Owens, a proud radical who, despite being on leave at the moment, played a central role in organizing the violent opposition to Murray and who, subsequently, has served as by far the most prominent faculty apologist for the protest and mob assault that took place afterward. The piece he penned (I’m sure you’ve read it, but for the benefit of others on this thread) is here: http://www.middbeat.org/2017/03/07/coming-together-and-coming-apart-by-professor-linus-owens/
Some excerpts from that essay include:
“I am angry that students’ views were delegitimized because they had not read CM’s entire oeuvre, meaning that to be able to fully participate in this rational debate they had to do extra work to prepare. […] I hate to break it to my fellow faculty, but sometimes students don’t read the primary sources. They’ve found that frequently secondary sources work just fine.”
“I am angry that this talk of free speech ignores important power differentials, on this campus and the world we live in. No one silenced CM.”
“I am angry that free speech is conflated with civil discourse, which is then equated with allowing a known racist and pseudo-scientist to stand on stage and gain the legitimacy of being on our campus, and only then we can ask smart and devastating questions in return. That’s one model, sure, but it’s not the only one. Students have speech rights, too. There is no right to that others will remain silence [sic], that you have the right to be heard.”
So to recap, Owens dismisses primary sources, a (the?) cornerstone of scholarly rigor; he denies that something happened when it indisputably did — i.e., Murray being silenced by the “simultaneous dialogue” (an awesomely Orwellian euphemism for shouting someone down); and he expresses a disdain of free speech that can only be described as totalitarian.
I know there’s an unspoken code among college faculty that you’re not supposed to call for the firing of your colleagues. I know that the protections of tenure are designed to protect unorthodox and controversial views. But in the case of Owens, he’s aggressively staking out a position that directly contradicts the values of the College and, more broadly, a free society.
I’m not asking you to opine on whether Owens specifically should be fired (would be great if you could share that opinion, but I understand why you might not want to, especially if you do think that’s what should happen). But could you more generally provide some commentary as to what the criteria should be for firing a faculty member for public antagonism toward the College’s values, and for abetting violence toward another faculty member? Very interested to hear your take.
I have made a few formatting changes to the spreadsheet (here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B8lf90n41MdFTVh4bnBBbW1CZ28?usp=sharing) and note a significant difference is the signatories self identifying as faculty of ‘American Studies’ – 5 signed the ‘LiO’ and 0 signed the ‘SoP’. Similarly, but not as dramatic, Sociology and Anthropology faculty supported 4 & 2 the ‘LiO’ and ‘SoP’ respectively. Economics and Political Science were ’tilted’, 3 & 10 in favorof’LiO’ and ‘SoP’ respectively – and one ‘LiO’ signatory (Craven) holds a ‘Visiting’ position. The favoring by faculty teaching Languages is striking – both for their significantly stronger stance in favor of the ‘LiO’ (21 of 58 total signatories vs. 9 of 87 signatories for ‘SoP’) but by their decision to be involved in opposition to a speaker addressing subject areas that they, presumably, have little competence to judge (not having training in statistics, demographics, social science theory, etc.)
I don’t have any familiarity with these departments but can conjecture that there may be strong department ‘identities’ and perhaps political hierarchy that encourages ‘group think’. An unusual convergence of views within a particular department is likely to stifle debate and discourage exposure to divergent and challenging perspectives. I expected rank or tenure to play a more prominent role in encouraging (or discouraging) participation. However, 23 of the 58 signatories to the ‘LiO’ are Assistant Professors or Instructors and presumably do not have tenure. One of the strongest statements in opposition was Associate Professor Owens who presumably does have tenure. Unfortunately, I don’t have the ‘rank’ of the signatories to the ‘SoP’ although this will be available somewhere.
Hi Matthew,
You write, “As for where the adults were – the reality is that some of the faculty were actively joining the protests on the inside of the hall.”
Wow. Faculty obstructed an invited speaker from being heard. That’s a whole lot bigger problem than faculty failing to make sure students behaved like adults. In that case, I’d recommend President Patton call an “all hands” meeting of the faculty to establish just what sort of institution Middlebury is.
You also write, “…I very much doubt that Murray is getting another invitation any time soon – that would be viewed by many as a deliberate stick in the eye.”
It should not be viewed that way. It should be viewed as doing something wrong on the first try, and getting it right on the second. Virtually no one seems to be looking at this from the perspective of the students who invited Charles Murray, or might have went to the talk thinking they would agree with him. Think about how intimidating it is to them or to anyone at Middlebury who might have a different political/social thought. Especially if *faculty* were actually involved in the shout-down.
Best wishes,
Mark
Not being associated with Middlebury but still a full-time college professor at a four-year institution that lacks Middlebury’s “prestige,” I will say that what happened there is profoundly depressing and I believe that the ramifications are going to last for a long time, and maybe permanently. First, and most important, while I do have disagreements with Charles Murray, nonetheless he is not a “white nationalist,” no matter what the SPLC might claim. And he is not a eugenicist. (Margaret Sanger, found of Planned Parenthood, WAS a True Believer in eugenics, as were many Progressives currently lionized in the Progressive Lexicon. She really was a white nationalist, not that the truth matters in modern academic discourse.)
Second, reading the student responses regarding the physical attack on a professor truly is depressing. No, passive voice does not suffice, no matter what the students claim. Her hair was not pulled; someone pulled it, and whether or not by accident, it still was a physical assault, which is a crime. Maybe it was a Middlebury student, or maybe it was not, but judging from the response of some of your students, the actions were justified. Are you next, should you say something in class that offends someone? Are students in classes justified in shouting you down or even physically assaulting you? At least some of the Middlebury students might answer in the affirmative.
How many students and faculty, for example have read Murray’s book “Losing Ground”? That book hardly is a bastion of “white nationalism” or whatever Mark Potok and Morris Dees might claim; it is serious scholarship, and while people are free to disagree with his points and even conclusions, Murray was not writing some sort of diatribe against African-Americans. Is reading that book even permitted on Middlebury’s campus, given the atmosphere that seems to exist there now?
My university is a four-year state institution that does not have an overall student body as wealthy or “bright” as what you have at Middlebury. Yet, I can engage my students on important subjects (I teach economics) that often might be controversial. We never have shouted down outside speakers and people of different viewpoints are welcome on our campus. I tend to be libertarian in politics (and left-of-center in foreign policy), but I was able to chair our university’s tenure/promotion subcommittee for three years, and I served with people of all different ideological viewpoints. Would that be permitted at Middlebury, or is there such a monoculture there that only one viewpoint is permitted?
For all of the talk about “diversity” at elite colleges and universities, it seems to me that what people there want is for everyone to look different, but think in lockstep. Since Middlebury has now seen one of its professors criminally assaulted by protesters led by students, I anxiously await any further developments. Somehow, I suspect that not a few students and faculty members have no problem with what happened.
William Anderson: Hooray for your four-year public institution—I’m serious. Hooray!!
I’ve been following the mob mentality on campus and there are prestigious four-year public Universities who have not managed to do what yours has done. There were riots at all four public institutions at which Yiannopolis (whom I despise) tried to speak. At the University of Washington in Seattle, a premier University, a mob was physically assaulting those lined up to get into the sold-out, 700-seat auditorium. Many, many were students at the U.
They were punching, throwing paint, etc. One person feared for his life and shot one of the attackers in the mob in the stomach. He survived. The shooter turned himself in. No resolution that I’ve seen. Washington is a CC state.
At the end of the talk, the police led those who did make it into the hall out the parking-lot basement, asking them to remove anything related to President Trump because there was a mob of 250+ people waiting outside the hall for them to emerge.
Civility has fled from our country. The ultimate result of the PC sickness.
another slice – of the 58 signatories to the ‘LiO’ 57% are female and 43% are male – of the 95 signatories of the ‘SoP’ (at 1400 Mar 9) 36% are female and 64% are male. I don’t know what, if anything, to deduce from this but it is a large difference…
Also interesting that of the ‘American Studies’ faculty identified on the Middlebury website, the five women faculty signed the ‘LiO’, while the seven men on faculty did not sign either document (I excluded Prof. Evans as she has a Visiting appointment in the Dept).
see spreadsheet here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B8lf90n41MdFTVh4bnBBbW1CZ28?usp=sharing
Hi Mark,
I do hope this deplorable incident offers an opportunity for the College administration to put down a strong marker on behalf of free speech and the toleration of dissenting views as essential values at a liberal arts institution. I suspect it will, but it may take some time as we work through the aftermath of what just happened, and allow some time for emotions to recede.
Meanwhile, I talked with an AEI student – they are moving forward to invite another speaker as soon as possible. It’s not likely to be Murray, however, although he did say some people had suggested they do just that.
John,
This is fascinating stuff. Regard your point about departmental cultures and unified views – I can tell you that my department, Political Science, which sponsored the AEI talk, engaged in a lengthy internal discussion about the wisdom of doing so. While a majority were in favor of doing so, there was significant opposition as well. So, on this point at least, I’m not sure there was an overwhelming departmental identify.
Dan,
Thanks for the comments. I haven’t read Professor Owens’ post, but I will. Interestingly, he was on with me this afternoon on Vermont Public radio, along with two quite eloquent Middlebury undergraduates, to discuss the Murray invitation, so I got a sense of his views. He made some important points regarding how the Murray invitation impact some students differently than others. You can listen to our exchange here: https://cpa.ds.npr.org/vpr/audio/2017/03/vermont-edition-20170309.mp3 I can’t speak to Professor Owens’ statements or actions regarding the protest (I don’t know what they were), but others have raised an important point: if the College decides to sanction undergraduates who clearly violated the College’s policy on peaceful protesting, will they also sanction faculty who protested in that fashion as well, and/or who might have encouraged undergraduates to break school policy?
Rob,
Ah, an eloquent comment, and a very depressing one, considering how Van Gogh’s life ended! I hope we aren’t there yet!
Prof. Dickinson, in listening to the NPR webcast you posted I heard you reference a pamphlet that you prepared, a collection of information or a critique of Dr. Murray’s work. Would you consider posting this somewhere?
To be clear, I didn’t prepare the pamphlet. I gave a presentation that included criticisms of Murrays’ The Bell Curve, and students used that to prepare the pamphlet. But I can try to post it on my blog site.
This is a revealing piece on the Southern Poverty Law Center and its loss of legitimacy. Its judgement of Dr. Murray is analyzed. Worth a read before you accept their claim that Dr. Murray is a ‘white supremacist’.
here: https://hudson.org/research/13419-an-anti-hate-group-that-jumped-the-shark
John,
To be clear, the criticism of Murray that I presented said nothing at all about allegations of white nationalism, eugenics, or any of the other nonsense that has been bandied about regarding his research. Instead, it looked at the data he presented and the conclusions he drew based on that data, and suggested that some of his conclusions were questionable given his data. For example, see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24103898_Lessons_from_the_Bell_Curve
Why are we parsing and handwringing about assault?
This wasn’t protest. This was assault. It should be treated as such.
More to the point, are pamphlets on seats with talking points now the norm? Maybe every time Bill McKibben speaks, the local Chamber of Commerce can send some to yell “I find your eviromentalism anti-democratic and elitist.” I’m sure those voice would be afforded the same administrative support, correct? Are you even listening to yourselves? I’m not being emotive either. This is just plain madness. As an alumni, I promise if there is not a clearing out of the student, administrative and faculty lounges, Middlebury will cease to be a relevant touchstone in my education. It will recieve nothing in terms of support and when I meet with perspective high schoolers, as I do in my role as admission interviewer, I ensure you I will steer them elsewhere. If you’re unwilling to hold up the College’s mission, surely you can’t expect anyon else to.
Bob Hill is rolling over in his grave.
Matt,
Thanks for your response. With all due respect, it feels a bit as if you’re skating around my question. Should the College continue to employ tenured professors who agitate against freedom of speech and abet violence against other faculty members? If so, why?
Best,
Dan
Prof. Dickinson, my apologies for a poorly worded statement – my intent was to say ‘before ONE accepts…’ – I did not intend to address this comment to you individually; rather I submitted it to help put in context, and provide additional information, to those who have heard the assertion by SPLC that Dr. Murray is a ‘racist’ and ‘white supremacist’. This assertion was, and is, repeated with an implicit assumption of the veracity and integrity of the SPLCs judgement. It appears that such a reliance on SPLC may be unfounded.
I, like many others, am fascinated by the choices that Middlebury will make in response to this event. As depicted in the NYT piece interviewing students, (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/opinion/discord-at-middlebury-students-on-the-anti-murray-protests.html?_r=0) there was a lot of soul searching, regret, recognition of their fallibility of judgement and susceptibility to peer pressures and emotional appeals. This is important learning. I suggested before that the students be required to write an exposition of one of Dr. Murray’s points that they were explicitly protesting and then write their own position in contrast. A discussion of these points in a moderated forum (similar to your NPR interview) would allow for reinforcement of the norms of dialogue and respect for other opinions and also highlight the impetuous and even irresponsible behaviour and thinking that took place. To learn this lesson of self-knowledge, self-control, and humility in interaction with ideas and people, seems to me, to be a worthy objective for a college student.
You have noted from the start that Middlebury’s reaction to this event will define the college for a long time to come, and it will resonate with other similar institutions. I agree and wish the Community all success.
John,
Thanks again for a thoughtful statement. I am in total agreement regarding trying to turn this debacle into a teaching experience for students so that they can learn how to engage with, rather than shut down, viewpoints with which they may disagree. The difficulty for many students is that when they hear a message that they feel is morally repugnant, or unacceptable, based in part on statements that purport to accurately portray that message, their first reaction is that they must actively shut it down. What I would like them to do is to learn to examine the message itself, rather than relying on others’ summaries, before coming to a conclusive judgment. It is a skill that is increasingly important in this age of alternative facts. In this case, lots of students were swayed by the selective quotes regarding Murray’s research published by the Southern Poverty Law Center. In 2000, Harper’s ran an article criticizing the SPLC’s fundraising tactics. It’s reprinted here: http://www.americanpatrol.com/SPLC/ChurchofMorrisDees001100.html. See also this piece by former Middlebury student Harry Zieve Cohen https://hudson.org/research/13419-an-anti-hate-group-that-jumped-the-shark I don’t know enough about the SPLC to evaluate these critiques, but they do paint a different picture of an organization that many on campus relied on to provide a unbiased take on Murray’s writings.
As for the road ahead, President Patton has already announced the creation of an independent investigation to determine the facts regarding the protests and violence at Murray’s talk. But that is only the start of what will be an important period of introspection on campus regarding free speech and the limits to protest. I thank you for your well wishes in this endeavor – we are going to need them!
Dan,
,
I didn’t’ mean to be appear to be skating – in your original question, I thought you were asking me about faculty who actually participated in the effort to shut down Murray’s speech. Since I have no knowledge of whether any faculty participated inside the building, or what they might have done, I didn’t feel that I should answer that question. But, I will say that generally speaking, if any faculty member is found to have violated the College’s code of conduct, as laid out in the College Handbook and as determined by processes laid out in the Handbook, I do think they should be subject to the penalties stipulated by that code of conduct.
Denise,
Thanks for your comments. The students took the initiative on their own to use my presentation, and other sources, to put together an informational pamphlet laying out their criticisms of Murray’s work, and distributing it at the event at their own cost. I applaud them for taking the time to analyze his research, and to summarize their findings, rather than simply relying on the judgments of others, such as the SPLC. If more students had engaged Murray in this thoughtful, constructive manner, rather than trying to forcefully stop him from speaking, we likely would not have seen this outbreak of violence.
I would be very comfortable if students did the same for other speakers with which they disagreed, including Bill McKibben. I would not be comfortable if they tried to shout McKibben down. My goal as an educator is to get them to engage with ideas – not dismiss them. The pamphlets, in my view, represent an effort to engage with Murray’s research. The effort to block his speech did not.
John,
A question to you: would it be possible to present some of your data, with attribution, in the form of power point slides at my weekly politics discussion? I hold it every week, and it is attended by about 50 students and local residents……
Prof. Dickinson, that’s fine – I guess that you have gained access to the GoogleDrive docs. I am updating the file now and will post the latest version. I left a phone msg with my contact details if you wish to discuss further. Kind regards, John
The irony of all this is that the most cutting “protest” of all would be to just ignore the speaker, leaving his speech to echo around a mostly empty hall.
Matt,
Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the Faculty Handbook. It appears the relevant regulations are here: http://www.middlebury.edu/about/handbook/faculty/misconduct. (If I’m mistaken, any effort to set me straight would be appreciated.)
Quoting from the Handbook:
“The following are considered as grounds for termination:
“(a) Flagrant and deliberate violations of the rules and procedures of the Middlebury College faculty; persistent failure to carry out specified teaching assignments as these are determined by a department or by the Curriculum Committee of the College. Action cannot be taken under the latter clause against a faculty member whose academic directions have not changed but who is a member of a department that has undertaken new directions and therefore has developed new needs.
“(b) Severe abuse of professional authority; deliberate coercion of others; deliberate suppression of the freedom of thought necessary in an academic community; patterns of behavior that fundamentally compromise a faculty member’s ability to carry out his or her responsibilities as a teacher, scholar, and contributor to the functioning and governance of the College.
“(c) Actions that are willfully destructive of College facilities or pose an imminent threat to the safety of others.
“(d) Serious criminal conduct as defined in General Principles section a. v.
“(e) Teaching ineffectiveness. (Procedures defined below in section f.)”
I would think that the actions of several Middlebury faculty members in the period before and during Murray’s visit would qualify as grounds for termination under sections B and C, right?
Exactly right. I have pointed this out repeatedly in conversations with students.
Dan,
This brings me back to my first response: I was not in the building, I did not see whether and how faculty participated, and so am in no position to judge their actions. I would add, as I’ve noted elsewhere in this thread, that faculty don’t give up their right to protest by virtue of taking a job at Middlebury, as long as they do so in ways consistent with the code of conduct. Whether some faculty went further, and violated the code of conduct you’ve cited, is now under active investigation by an independent source. It’s not going to be very helpful for me to speculate regarding what that outcome might be!
Although even Charles Murray said: ““The Middlebury administration was exemplary.”, watching the video I found it odd that the administration didn’t ask the protestors for silence. I’d seen elsewhere some students suggest that based on school policies, since they weren’t asked to stop then it isn’t clear what if any disciplinary action can be taken against them. To me that calls into question whether the administration was too sympathetic to the protestors. The fact that they didn’t attempt to get the protestors to stop likely helped some to decide to continue to protest during the live stream by making noise.
Although I’d seen one claim they weren’t prepared to deal with the level of protests, that seems to contradict the fact that that they had a live stream setup ready to go. That calls into question whether they expected the protest to shut down the talk and intended not to attempt to stop it, since they were sympathetic to it.
In addition to the issue of freedom of speech on campus, the responses of many students and faculty to the talk, before and after, suggests a lack of critical thinking skills that calls into question the quality of education there.
These people appear willing to write letters and make public statements without seeming to have bothered even taking a few minutes to do basic research. They seem to feel their uninformed views should be heard without bothering to do so. I would think that most rational people who hear a claim that a white nationalist has been invited to speak would wonder if that was actually true, or if there might be something more to the speaker than that. Some felt justified in shutting down a speaker without seeming to know much about him.
Many mindlessly repeat the SPLC’s absurd attack on Charles Murray as a “white nationalist”, which suggests they didn’t even bother to take the minimal effort required to even look at the wikipedia entry on who he is. Obviously the wikipedia’s reliability is subject to question, but the point is that even just doing a quick “reality check” would turn up the fact that he was married to a woman from Thailand, quoting an NYT article that he said she: ” “born with one hand and a mind sharp enough to outscore the rest of the country on the college entrance exam” (which also calls into question the protestors attack on him as “sexist”), that he has half Asian children and said: “There are aspects of Asian culture as it is lived that I still prefer to Western culture, 30 years after I last lived in Thailand”. I would hope that would have at least raised questions in most people’s minds as to whether that any of that matches the image of a “white nationalist” (even if it doesn’t definitively rule it out) and whether perhaps there is more to the story.
Of course the topic of the speech also had nothing to do with the Bell Curve work. I’m guessing these people merely wished to believe the worst about their opponents, and haven’t been taught to be skeptical of conclusions that are emotionally appealing. Nobel laureate Richard Feynman has a famous talk on Cargo Cult Science talking about the importance of learning to not fool yourself:
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. ”
These people exhibit such religious-like certainty that Murray must be wrong that they weren’t even willing to consider hearing his ideas.
Oddly even one post on this page defending Murray’s right to speak makes the strange comment: “I don’t imagine there are many Trump supporters in the Middlebury student body, but there must be at least a few, or Charles Murray wouldn’t have had an invitation from a student group “. Apparently they didn’t bother to check their assumptions since Charles Murray has been anti-Trump all along. I’d seen mention that some in the AEI club there referred to themselves as libertarians, and Murray is a libertarian-leaning conservative, so it makes sense he isn’t a fan of authoritarian Trump (who oddly seems a mix of authoritarian elements of both modern liberals and conservatives).
I’d suggest that some of those bashing Murray are also exhibiting a lack of basic understanding of evolution, calling into question again the education they are getting. Much of the bashing of Murray seems to be regarding the issue of a potential link between genetics and intelligence (seemingly unaware that Murray has said he is agnostic regarding how much is environment vs. how much is genetics). Regardless, he has noted, it shouldn’t matter, people should be respected and treated as individuals regardless of what any data shows regarding average characteristics of some set of people they happen to be a member of.
However I’d suggest that some of these people seem to be dismissing out of hand the idea that there could be any genetic variation between races or genetic link to intelligence, and *that* is what seems to be blatant junk science that suggests a lack of basic understanding of the concept of evolution. Human intelligence evolved to begin with, so it should be obvious that there might be some variation in the intelligence trait among those who had enough of a period of physically isolated evolution to exhibit variations in other traits like height and appearance. Perhaps not, but the issue can’t be resolved without study, and it hasn’t yet been resolved (contrary to the odd comment made in the record of the live stream with Murray where the truly weird claim was made that there was “race is not genetically determined, intelligence is not genetically determined” “we know this now”, which seemed to be a misunderstanding of the issue, as if it were about 1 easily identifiable gene being different, which would be silly to expect, rather than a complicated set of lots of genes).
Matt,
Sorry for the double comment. Let me clarify what I mean by “the actions of several Middlebury faculty members”. I understand the importance of due process and running an impartial investigation. Certainly there is a possibility that certain faculty members’ actions have been misreported, and to the extent that they are facing disciplinary consequences, they deserve a fair hearing. So let me clarify my question as follows:
*IF* the following were in fact the actions of several Middlebury professors…..
– They encouraged students to shout down Murray, calling it “simultaneous dialogue”
– They propagated slanderous lies about Murray, including that he is a homophobe and a white supremacist
– They told students that Murray’s visit constituted an act of violence against various marginalized groups on campus, “priming the pump” for a violent response
– They held numerous meetings in which they encouraged students *not* to read Murray’s work ahead of his visit, and subsequently defended their decision to do so
– They falsely described Murray’s work as bogus and fully discredited, when in fact (despite prominent flaws in his methodology) he’s one of the most influential living social scientists
….do you read the excerpt from the Handbook I pasted into my previous comment as pertinent to these actions?
Dan – An excellent question! I’m not going to skate on this – I’m going to ponder. I suppose I might end up answering that it makes little sense to consider hypothetical scenarios, particularly at a sensitive moment like this. And I won’t be the person making the determination, so my answer is symbolic at best. But you are expecting more than that, and I confess I have to think long and hard about this. I think your handbook excerpts are pertinent to the hypothetical actions. But I’m not sure I know how I would apply them in terms of actual penalties without more thought on my part. I’m assuming you feel more certain?
Matt, I don’t feel more certain — I’m honestly curious. I have no idea how the faculty governs itself; it is one facet of the College I had absolutely no exposure to when I was a student. I’m sure it’s obvious how I feel about what kind of consequences are appropriate here; and upon reflection, I think my anger is rooted not only in the fact that Allison was assaulted and Middlebury’s reputation was stained, but moreover in my anticipation of there not being any meaningful consequences for any of the involved students and faculty members.
On a related note, while I’m heartened — flattered, even — by your willingness to engage with me in thoughtful dialogue on this topic and take some time to reflect on my question, I’m a bit disheartened at the fact that this is something you need to think about, and what that says about the culture of the Middlebury College faculty.
I would posit that strong institutions are characterized by a clearly stated set of values that are mutually known and regularly discussed. You’re a political scientist, and a pretty darn distinguished one at that; a big part of your job is analyzing how groups of people create, modify, and interact with the rules that apply to their lives (e.g., laws). Put another way, you’re a subject matter expert on how people interact with rules, and yet, you are clearly reluctant to engage questions, even hypothetical ones, about how to interpret the very rules that govern you and your colleagues on the Middlebury faculty.
Is this because there’s an unspoken code that faculty members should never call for administrative consequences for their peers’ conduct? Is it because the Faculty Handbook is an ignored formality posted on the Middlebury website for the sake of appearances and the reduction of legal liability? Is there another reason?
By the way, I hope the words above don’t come across as an indictment of you personally. I’ve never been your student but we’ve had a handful of conversations over the years (you probably don’t remember me given how many students come and go), and you’ve always struck me as an exceptionally considerate and intelligent person. As such, it saddens me that, especially given your area of academic expertise, even you can’t immediately respond to my question with a brief paragraph along the lines of, “the following hypothetical actions within your question would constitute acceptable behavior, the following other hypothetical actions are unacceptable, and if found to have done the unacceptable things, a faculty member could probably expect the following consequences”.
One of the things that’s crazy is that Coming Apart has nothing to say about black people. It is entirely an analysis of the state of white people. You’d think that the protesters would be happy that a white man is talking about white men.
Russ,
Thanks for the comment. Several people pointed this out to those opposing Murray’s speech. Their response, which I summarize here, is that it would be wrong to move past the argument he made in the past which they believe was racism masking as pseudo-science. Of course, it is entirely possible that whites in the lower socioeconomic strata would find his comments regarding why they are “coming apart” offensive as well – were they given the chance to hear them (which they weren’t). He essentially blames them for their own predicament, if I understand his argument correctly. (I’ve not read the full book.) Nonetheless, I remain convinced while that might be reason not to attend his talk, it does not justify preventing others from hearing it.
Dan ’05,
I’m butting in here, but in my view as a faculty member (at a different university), I think the hypothetical question you’re asking is harder to answer than you suppose — although I agree with you in principle that it’s a serious matter if faculty members are egging on what amount to mob actions aimed at shutting down speech.
Part of the problem, though, is that several of the offenses you describe are themselves speech acts. The whole point here is to defend freedom of speech, and we’re not really doing that effectively if we start penalizing people for their speech. A faculty member who mischaracterizes Murray or his work, even very badly, or who endorses one of the theories that are out there nowadays that historic power differentials implicate some neutral-seeming events (like a campus address) in something we might call “violence” against marginalized groups, is wrong, in my view; but that faculty member is expressing opinion, just as Murray should have been allowed to do. The principle of free speech includes the idea that should almost never be a violation of a law or rule to express an opinion, and also that doing so does not compel any particular reaction from others, who must be held responsible for themselves. Hence, there are almost no circumstances where we could usefully speak of speech acts as “priming the pump”; the very narrow exceptions, like the “fighting words” doctrine, or the famous but much-misused Oliver Wendell Holmes quote about “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” specifically refer to visceral reactions a person can be expected to have in the moment to certain kinds of direct physical threats. Just as such exceptions do not include writing a book or giving a campus talk about it, they do not include saying something about this at a meeting or in a class some time beforehand that the hearers would have time to weigh and reflect upon.
Further, even if we granted that faculty have a higher responsibility than most speakers because of their role as teachers, and that there are therefore somewhat greater limits on what they can legitimately say to undergraduates, it would be difficult to say in the abstract what penalties should follow from this. Any given case will be very fact-specific. How was the faculty member’s comment framed? Was it offered as one view to be considered, or as a dogmatic demand for action? Was the speaker quoting someone else, explicitly or implicitly invoking some theory of the relationships between speech, power, and violence that is already out there and legitimately subject to academic discussion? Was the speaker taking a leading role, or merely one contributor to a wider exchange of views? Was the speaker’s claim followed up with overt acts intended to cause a disruption of the campus event? And — the classic question — was this a first offense, perhaps calling just for some kind of admonishment, or a serious indicator that the faculty member does not understand and does not intend to carry out the trust to which he or she was appointed? It would take detailed, case-by-case inquiries to settle such questions; there’s no one answer that would cover all the permutations.
And again, while I’m personally appalled at the idea that faculty members would be involved in shutting down or shouting down an invited speaker, I would also say that since the point here is defend free speech, the benefit of the doubt should fall heavily on the side of the accused. Anything that merely involves expressing a view, even a very wrong one, should probably be left alone.
Jeff,
I’m neck deep in class-related stuff like grading that I neglected while dealing with the media fallout from the visit by He Who Shall Not Be Named, so I can’t devote as much time to responding to Dan’s very good question as I’d like. I’m also somewhat constrained in responding to a hypothetical that many people here at Middlebury might not construe as a hypothetical. But my caution in coming down conclusively on how to determine a penalty is in part because of the reasons you raise regarding being careful in how we punish free speech if that free speech is intended to stifle speech.
This thread has already proved incredibly useful to me (and I hope others) in discussing many of the issues related to He Who Cannot Be Named’s visit. I am glad to let others take up the initial discussion regarding what, if any, are the appropriate punishments in this case. In between grading, I’ll try to chime in, but know that I’m lurking in any case….
Dan,
No, I’m not taking them as an indictment at all. But I honestly need time to think through what a proper response to the hypothetical scenario you sketch out should be. (I’m also constrained by the need to catch up with all my neglected teaching assignments.) Your question deserves an answer, and I’m hoping others will chime in while I cogitate.
I think everyone needs a simple reminder on the definition of assault.
An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law.
The Speaker was assaulted in the venue. The professor was battered outside. Both are crimes. Both should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
A. Nawny,
Thanks for joining in. I was not inside the event hall, but it’s not clear to me anyone inside threatened Murray with bodily harm. Outside is another matter – there I think the threat was real.
Jeff,
I really appreciate your thoughtful response to my question. You make an interesting point about freedom of speech, but I’d counter that it’s not as fraught an issue as you claim. It’s clear that, at least to some extent, Middlebury restricts its community members’ speech to a greater extent than does the US as a whole. If some jackass stands in Times Square yelling horribly racist stuff, that’s protected speech; if he subsequently gets punched in the mouth by a passerby, the Fighting Words Doctrine significantly reduces the likely consequences for his assailant, but his fundamental Constitutional right to make deeply offensive public comments exists. By contrast, doing something similar in, say, the middle of a Midd dining hall during lunch would certainly get one expelled as a student or fired as a faculty member. I see this as the right policy as far as Midd is concerned; the point here is that the College is, in fact, prepared to limit speech — at least to a certain extent, and in certain cases — in order to foster a climate conducive to the College’s mission.
If the facts as I understand them are correct (i.e., the bullet points from my hypo above are accurate), I think classifying these professors’ actions as just a bunch isolated incidents of protected speech would constitute a massive moral failure by the College’s leadership. I see a clear pattern of misconduct and the deliberate encouragement of students to scuttle a College-sanctioned event by means of Orwellian thuggery.
The things these faculty members did and said occurred over a period of a week leading up to the event. This is not a case of someone crossing the line in the heat of the moment and regretting it later. This was a concerted effort to make it impossible for Murray to deliver a College-sponsored lecture, and if Linus Owens’ public comments are indicative of the attitudes of the other professors involved, they do not regret it in the slightest.
the ultimate sanction will be determined by the ‘market’ – i.e. if prospective students are discouraged by the administration’s sanction (or lack thereof) of the students and professors, they will not apply, and conversely, if a lenient environment for protest is favored by prospective students then they will apply…
The academy is caught between asserting principles and marketing and threading this needle is why college administrators earn big dollars. There is clearly a reluctance in sectors of the larger society to strongly condemn behavior that hampers free expression of contentious ideas and there is also a demand for ‘safe spaces’ etc. by segments of the students (and applicants). The balance is to protect the reputation for free inquiry that appeals to certain students while also promoting, or at a minimum tolerating, the expression of outrage and condemnation that appeal to other students.
I don’t see how the Middlebury administration can avoid prosecuting obvious contraventions of their Code of Conduct, solely as a matter of retaining their proper authority. But I expect a ‘creative’ approach that may be consistent with the objective of furthering ‘learning’ may be found, especially for the students. A harsher judgement seems warranted for those professors who transgressed.
I expect that any decision will be consequential for Middlebury and other similar institutions and it seems appropriate to make a thorough inquiry, cast widely for counsel, and approach this with due deliberation. There’s nothing to be gained by rushing -there’s also potentially a lot to be lost by imprudent hesitation or equivocation.
John,
Do you have a link to the letter of opposition (March 1) signed by faculty and students? I can only find the one written by alums and published in The Campus.
Will, I have uploaded several letters and documents including the March 1 Letter of Opposition to a GoogleDrive here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B8lf90n41MdFTVh4bnBBbW1CZ28?usp=sharing
Hope that is helpful.
Dan,
Thanks for your reply as well. I find a great deal to dislike in Linus Owens’ published statement, even though I think he and I would probably be in broad agreement on most issues of national politics. The statement, though, is intellectually sloppy — he never quotes anything or gives chapter and verse on anything he’s criticizing — and many of the claims he makes about free speech and the other issues at hand are fallacious in ways it would take too long to detail here. I’m sure you’re already aware of them.
A couple of things. We are talking about a Code of Conduct, and one of the great illiberal anti-free-speech moves is to try to define speech as “conduct.” That’s largely what Owens himself is doing. This is very dangerous. Saying stuff, even stupid and wrong stuff, is not meaningfully “conduct,” except in the few very narrow and highly exceptional cases that the federal courts have long recognized (like “fighting words”). If we allow an Owens-like theory that structures of power and the like make virtually all speech effectively conduct, we’ll find very soon that there’s no real freedom of speech.
So precisely in order to combat views like Owens’, I would favor defining the “conduct” in a “code of conduct” very narrowly, and drawing as bright a line as possible separating it from speech. Hence, for instance, I would say that Owens isn’t subject to sanctions for publishing his statement or holding those views. He is, after all, despite his fallacies, advancing and/or critiquing ideas and theories — like Habermas’, which he references briefly. That’s the point of academic discussion. To be guilty of wrong conduct, he would have to be shown to have *done* something specifically wrong, e.g. to have been present at the event personally shouting down Murray or actively egging on students to do so.
Second, there’s an issue here for me about what tenure means. (I’m assuming Owens has tenure.) Tenuring a professor is making him or her a partner in the faculty, comparable to a partner in a law firm or a privately held corporation. If Owens is tenured, he is not just an employee, he is a constituent part of the partnership, the “universitas,” that is the Middlebury faculty, and especially its sociology department. That department, in recommending tenure or hiring him with tenure, effectively said: “What this person does IS sociology, as far as we’re concerned.” The field is defined by the sum of decisions like these — whom to accredit as a professor of the discipline, which papers and books should pass peer review, what counts as work worthy of a degree in the field. Peer judgment is absolutely central to academia; in any given field it is definitional, the thing that separates what counts as part of that field from what doesn’t.
Now, I’d have no problem with Owens’ faculty peers reading his published statement and deciding it makes him unworthy of tenure, if he didn’t have it yet. It puts him on the wrong side of a central question about the academic enterprise, which is whether and to what extent it’s about promoting free discussion and inquiry. He takes a cramped view on these matters that would not be helpful in advancing that aspect of a college’s mission. And as he himself says about Murray, denying him tenure on that basis would not be depriving him of freedom of speech; he could still go out in the world and publish his ideas or give speeches on them as he likes. He could spend the rest of his days criticizing Murray or Habermas or Middlebury in blog posts or on streetcorners or in TED talks or in the pages of whatever journals would have him. No problem.
But if he has tenure, then Middlebury made a (possibly fateful) decision already, in the past, which it now has to honor. It said that sociology, as Middlebury understands the discipline, broadly includes Owens-ism, if not every particular thing Linus Owens chooses to say. It can’t fairly pick and choose now, selectively penalizing some of his ideas or statements. If it didn’t want radical anti-Habermasianism represented in its sociology department, it needed to make that choice at an earlier date.
HOWEVER, I would add that Middlebury can nonetheless assert — boldly — what kind of institution it means to be, and can inform all its faculty and students of this. In fairness to them, it *should* do so, in fact. If it means to be an institution that has controversial speakers on campus, including some from conservative think tanks, it should say so. It can make clear the methods whereby speakers will be identified and invited, and should make clear that once they are, they will be treated as guests, will absolutely not be “no-platformed” but will be permitted to speak. It can even, perhaps, explain why it believes this, what theories of free speech, academic freedom, and the value of freely exchanging ideas it is relying on. It could say, “Middlebury College does not agree that a campus talk, from a speaker vetted through our established procedures, is an act of violence, or that it threatens or de-legitimizes members of its community.” It could quote John Stuart Mill to this effect. Or Isaiah Berlin. Or even Habermas. 😉
Now, Linus Owens and others who are so minded might not like this. Fine; that’s the point. They should be put on notice: This is the kind of institution you’re serving, and if that’s unacceptable to you, you may leave your resignation with your department chair or dean. If you choose to stay, you can talk down “the faux Habermasian public sphere” all you like, can accuse Middlebury of being one, can even offer courses or “teach-ins” about this and can invite students to DISCUSS — not dogmatically accept — your view of these matters. You can join peaceable, non-disruptive protests against public speakers or campus events, or applaud students who do. What you can’t do is materially contribute to disrupting such events so that they can’t go forward. Accept this limitation, or go seek work at some other college that operates on different principles.
Sorry, that took longer to say than I intended. Hope it helps. 🙂
This discussion should begin and end with the administration expelling everyone involved in a violent suppression of free speech.