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!
Charles Yancy, avowed racist, spoke without issue on campus recently but a return visit from Murray is a bridge too far?
Please continue the devaluation of our degree Middlebury, I’m sure the faculty won’t start fleeing soon. Your Bennington moment is right around the corner.
I did a quick google search. It has been a month and so far nothing has been said.
Could you give us an update?
J dye – My understanding, based on a communication from President Patton to alumni, is that consistent with College policy, all disciplinary actions will remain confidential, at least on an individual basis. I do not know if that means there will be any final announcement about disciplinary results, such as releasing aggregate figures without identifying individual students. We are on break now, so it is possible that some disciplinary proceedings have already occurred and I just haven’t heard about it. I will post an update at this site as soon as I hear anything definitive. Meanwhile, here is an excerpt from President Patton’s statement to alumns:
“The Middlebury community has joined together in condemning the violence that occurred. There are two investigations underway—the College’s independent investigation of the events of March 2 and, second, a police investigation of the incident outside. The student conduct process underway will be fair and just. Federal law requires that the process and individual outcomes remain confidential, except in the case of criminal violence. Our commitment to this process is absolute.”
When I was in graduate school at the University of Chicago long ago, a group of students took over the administration building. The University shut off the building’s water supply and simply waited them out. As they came out in ones, twos and small groups, a good while later, they were detained, identified and promptly expelled. All Middlebury will likely do is wring its hands and wax lyrical on academic freedom. I would be shocked at any consequences. The twits run the insane asylum.
How would you define a campus riot?
Since I see some added comments, I’ll add: Even if individual students aren’t identified, they can still provide some sort of generic comment on progress rather than merely a “final” summary (if they even intended to do that). Punishment only acts a deterrent if people see a likelihood of punishment. Those who harassed the speaker then are likely now feeling free to harass those on campus with non-liberal views since they don’t see signs of consequences even to those engaging in a high profile protest.
Hopefully they realize when a month has past without comment, the rest of the world likely assumes not much if anything will be done because the administration was on the side of the protestors all along, not having attempted to silence the disruption and having been prepared from the beginning to give into them and move the speaker. Those who weren’t on the side of the protestors are seeing exactly what they expected: lip service paid to free speech but no real support for it despite that. In contrast another university, Villanova, actually ejected their protestors:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/31/villanova-safety-officers-remove-three-people-who-tried-disrupt-charles-murray-talk
(see comments on that page for critique of the Villanova profs who tried to prevent the
talk).
Granted there were fewer people causing disruption, but that may have been because the event was better managed, and of course actually even asking the students to stop might have silenced many of them.
Of course the university can merely give in and simply attract more students from its liberal base and not truly consider valuing diversity of ideas (even to “know their enemy”). Otherwise it also should engage in a public program of educating people about the importance of freedom of speech, and the importance of critical thinking skills rather than mindlessly believing any emotionally appealing smear campaign against a speaker and repeating it without question. Real critical thinking skills vs. the mockery being made of “critical thinking” in some fields, as this notes:
https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2017/03/college-graduates-still-cant-think/
“Why College Graduates Still Can’t Think”
Otherwise many employers now will be very sure to engage their critical thinking skills when considering any Middlebury graduates if they happened to see the unquestioned nonsense spouted in many opinion pieces from both students and faculty on the topic of Murray’s visit.
“all disciplinary actions will remain confidential, at least on an individual basis.” Why? Where is the opprobrium and deterrence in that. Transparency doesn’t countenance star chamber proceedings.
If the public sees nothing done, the perception is that nothing was done. That the faculty was ‘just fine’ with how things worked out (except for one of their own getting hurt.)
They did nothing before the speech, they did nothing during the speech and now, they are doing nothing AFTER the speech. The track record is pretty consistent. Maybe a few students ‘suddenly disappear’ due to ‘illness’, but no message is sent to the kids that they aren’t allowed to destroy property or harm people.
You may not like it characterized that way, but is there really any other way to look at it? You gave rioters and assaulters a soft landing.
‘Criminal violence’ was engaged in. So that veil of privacy doesn’t apply. Heck, that veil only applies to SUSPECTS, not proven malefactors.
Chicago, Villanova, and OSU have my respect. They seem to understand their role as LEADERS of their facilities. Misbehavior isn’t tolerated and abuses are punished.
In a back handed way, Berkley has my respect. They no longer make any pretense of respecting freedom of speech for those who disagree with them and will not apply the rule of law to their allies. They are ‘in the bag’ and openly and brazenly so.
Middlebury is a pusillanimous organization: giving the slightest of lip service to principles and yet doing nothing to actually defend those principles.
My only hope is that the police in your town has more character and courage than the faculty (you know…the ones that JOINED the rioters) have displayed.
CommonSense Boulder, and really, many commenters,
I will say that the way that the administration has handled this so far has effectively silenced dissent, and particularly from known organizers on campus (who, I will add, do countless hours of uncompensated, unrecognized labor to make this school better in ways that it claims it wants to be–more inclusive of marginalized groups). The fear of an unknown punishment or threats to their safety (which could have life-altering consequences, and we can agree or disagree about whether that is right), has made it so that many who agree with the protesters have not spoken up–in class, in the school paper, or even in the national press. Those who are committed to free speech and to the freedom to express dissent on campus should recognize that students are the ones who have their speech rights most threatened, and that punitive measures in response to this event will suppress campus activism at Middlebury.
To read more:
https://medium.com/@linusvanpelt/in-defense-of-disruption-a99498fe61b9
Current Midd,
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I should probably start a new post with a new comments thread to update everyone on what has happened since I tried to end (without much success!) this current thread after the comments started getting redundant. But in response to you, I think those on the free speech side would say that no one wants to stifle protest – indeed, protest is entirely consistent with free speech! In that vein, I can tell you that I actively worked with students prior to the Murray talk regarding how to present an effective protest, and many of my students were prepared to engage him on points they had developed after reading his work, or they were prepared to protest outside, or were going to do both.) But I think the key point that divides the two sides is what constitutes a protest consistent with free speech standards. To the free speech crowd, protests that seem to obstruct the rights of the many other students who wanted to hear Murray speak, and to engage directly with him, should not be allowed.
I’ll see if I can start up a separate thread on this topic so that you and others who share your perspective can more directly engage with the free speech crowd. Again, thanks for weighing in – it’s much appreciated.
To Current Midd Student,
I think your broad concern about a backlash directed at students who simply agreed with–but did not participate in–the disruption of Dr. Murray’s speech and the subsequent violence, is worthy. I personally think such a belief is untenable and would not withstand argument, but there’s nothing wrong with expressing it. This is a fine line any administration must tread.
The right thing to do is to punish, by suspension and in some cases even expulsion, those students who actively disrupted the speech. They were warned, they knew the possible punishments, and they did it anyway. If that makes some of them nervous now, why didn’t it make them heed the warnings beforehand?
Current Midd
Free speech, as the Supreme Court laid out, ends at the intersection of your fist and my nose.
However it also ends at the intersection of your destroying someone else’s free speech. ‘Rights for me and not for thee’ is not what I would call ‘free speech’.
There were MULTIPLE ways that the protestors could have had their say without stomping all over everyone else’s rights.
They did not use them. They decided to stomp all over Murray’s free speech rights. Because let’s not kid ourselves: impinging the free speech rights was EXACTLY what the protestors wanted to do.
If you offer no free speech to anyone else, why should you be given such rights?
That is the deal. You might want to take a few classes on basic Constitutional law.
J Dye,
If I were you, I wouldn’t recommend that Current Midd Student take classes on basic Constitutional law, because they will reveal that you’re wrong. Charles Murray has no free-speech rights at Middlebury College. He has such rights in the public square, but Middlebury is not the public square — it’s a private association that can make its own rules and decide for itself which speakers to invite. Its right to do that is also an important aspect of American freedom.
Likewise, Current Midd is wrong about the protesters having some basic right to protest. They have the rights provided by contract in the agreements they sign when they become Middlebury students. If those contractual terms are not acceptable to them, they are free to reject them, or to leave. State universities, which are arms of the government, legally *are* bound by the First Amendment and must permit protests, so perhaps they would find a state campus more congenial.
Now, having said that, I agree with you in principle that an American college *should* honor the principle of free speech and should seek to promote it, both in terms of hosting a wide range of outside speakers and in terms of permitting protests that express opinions but do not shut down events or speakers. As I argued in earlier comments here, I think the Middlebury administration would be making a mistake if it tolerated no-platforming and didn’t send a strong signal that controversial speakers will be heard. But private associations, like private citizens, are permitted to make mistakes and to act in ways contrary to their own interests. Nothing in the Constitution says otherwise.
Hi Jeff, and all,
Thanks for responding — thanks, especially, Prof. Dickinson, for responding. Although who knows whether engaging on a blog with people who aren’t related to this institution and really have minimal stake in what happens will help in any way, this is one entrance to the “other side”, and I am hopeful that engaging here might help people recognize the greater context for the protest–that it was never about Charles Murray’s platform, but a demand to the institution to change.
I actually agree with you that this is an issue of a private institution providing a platform or not, not truly a speech issue. All of this, to me, is about foundational differences in understanding the mission of Middlebury as an educational institution and the operation of power within this space. I put it in the terms of “speech rights” because that’s how it has been framed on this blog and by many commenters, and because I think that those wanting to use the “free speech!!!” claim are hypocritical in missing the idea that if those are the terms of the debate, students should also have access to full rights of civil disobedience and protest. And, honestly, because people on the “free speech” side seem uninterested in the fact that the punitive measures that the institution is taking now have suppressed dissent and this “intellectual diversity” many people are so keen on (whether that’s the intention, or whether that’s what should happen based on school policy is another discussion.)
I believe that as an educational institution, Middlebury shouldn’t have brought Murray to speak, not only because his scholarship is trash but because it’s premised on the ideas that are dehumanizing–that some people (who are part of marginalized groups, such as people of color and/or poor people) are inferior (and not just in subjectively-defined intelligence, but also in ‘virtue’.) (And yes, I have read some of Murray’s work and I have read a lot of criticism of it, so don’t try the “you haven’t read it” argument on me.) Those are ideas that marginalized students here have had to contend with their entire life, they are hegemonic ideas that are ever-present… bringing Murray to campus was not necessary to have a discussion about them. Those who invited Murray and who legitimized his talk had many opportunities to adjust the format, to engage dialogue about it, or to choose a different ‘conservative’ speaker that hadn’t already visited campus and insulted black students here. Middlebury also has anti-harassment policies, that Murray’s previous speech didn’t comply with… if this is about “policy”, we can also interpret his invitation as breaking with school policy and school interests.
I, too, fear a blanket policy being implemented that would impede student groups from bringing *controversial* speakers… but the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, and I actually think that we can draw the line at white supremacy or eugenicist arguments (again, I have read enough of his work–and enough on the history of racism and eugenics in the US–to claim that this is a valid interpretation of it!) without limiting all other controversial speakers. I don’t believe in ‘neutral’ education; I am a Frierean (see Pedagogy of the Oppressed, or Pedagogy of Hope, Reading the Word and Reading the World, or many other texts written by Paulo Friere), and believe that education is political and directive in that it must enable students to inhabit a particular mode of agency, to recognize their relationships to the world. That doesn’t mean that it’s indoctrination, but that, in fostering dialogue, pedagogues must recognize power. (Sorry this is a two sentence summary of a brilliant scholar’s expansive works.) I believe that Professor Dickinson is a Weberian in terms of teaching ‘science as a vocation’ with “minimal bias”–I don’t really think that that’s possible… I think that the institution will always be biased. Not every club has access to the funds to bring all speakers, not “every” idea will be represented… as many on all sides of this debate have highlighted, Middlebury is incredibly homogenous (white and wealthy), so we’re obviously unable to claim that there’s a “full” representation of thought on campus. It’s not an equitable “playing field”, and I think this institution should recognize that power dynamics are ever-present, and that it should strive to be more equitable. No one is demanding instant perfection; but we are asking for recognition of the daily harm that people from oppressed groups experience on campus and action to work against that, action toward a more just, liberatory, and inclusive education. (This wasn’t just about Murray but about the white supremacy, elitism, and ableism at this institution, and the implications from those in power that students should, in the face of oppression, be polite and “get over it”–not ask the institution to change.) See more: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2017/03/30/colleges-need-language-shift-not-one-you-think-essay
Thanks for engaging, y’all! I engage with both conviction but also with humility, knowing that I also have a lot to learn from discussion, too.
Current Midd -Thanks again for another thoughtful post. For what it is worth, this blog gets a pretty wide readership, including current and former Midd students who do have a stake in this issue, so it is very useful for them to hear your views. I should probably start a new post, since the comments to this one now number more than 200 and arw still growing, but for now I’ll let others respond to you.
And to those others – please engage directly with Current Midd’s comments – don’t talk past them. S/he has taken time to articulate an important perspective, one held by many of those who defend the protestors. Be civil and constructive!
Current Midd,
Just another minor, but I think important, correction: There is no such thing as “full rights of civil disobedience.” If there’s a right to a given act, then it’s not disobedience. What makes it disobedience is that it’s a deliberate violation of rules or laws. The authority that makes the law can’t also grant a right to violate it without in effect repealing the law, because the whole point of a law is to specify acts that are violations and how they’ll be punished.
In classic cases of civil disobedience, like Gandhi’s in India or Martin Luther King’s in the American South, the point was to call out a given law as unjust by deliberately breaking it **and then submitting to the penalty** that the authority that made the law imposed. The idea was that this would shock the conscience of fair-minded people, who would realize that if the law was punishing good people who were doing right, then it was wrong and shouldn’t be there in the first place. This is why King’s famous “Letter from the Birmingham Jail” was written from the Birmingham jail — because he didn’t resist going to jail, he intended it: getting arrested was itself part of the protest.
Now, as King argued, the law he broke was wrong and needed to be abolished (and soon was). Most people today would agree that he had a *moral* right to break it. But even he didn’t claim that a city like Birmingham should make laws and then not enforce them. He said they should make laws that were not unjust in the first place. Put another way, though he expressed his disrespect and disregard for certain bad laws, King did so in a way that showed respect for law in general, that recognized that lawfulness as such is a good thing, that it’s an important feature of liberty and equality and essential protection for the historically victimized. Without law and lawfulness, all we have is power, and a contest of power will always favor the already powerful.
I think some of today’s campus protesters (not necessarily or only at Middlebury) are confused about this. If they were in fact engaging in civil disobedience, they would be prepared to take the penalties to which you’re objecting. They would also have a clear idea of why the rules they’re breaking are wrong and what alternative rules they favor instead, and would be trying to get the rules changed accordingly. They would not argue for having rules that aren’t meant to be enforced, i.e. some kind of official “right” to civil disobedience granted and recognized by the Middlebury administration. That’s wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
I would also strongly caution against too loose an interpretation of the term “harassment.” Again, Middlebury is a private association and can makes its own rules on this, but in general, a concept like harassment is a very handy weapon for the forces of hegemony that you say you oppose. They will always say that political dissidents are “harassing” officials or other citizens with their demands and protests. This has often been the reason given for crackdowns against protesters. King himself was the target of such accusations; he organized boycotts, for instance, which were meant to deny customers to businesses and put pressure on business owners, and as such were said to be a kind of harassment of them. If you want the powerless and the voiceless to have a voice, you should favor the fewest and narrowest possible restrictions on speech, because whatever exceptions to free speech there are — and harassment is just one, along with libel, espionage, incitement, “shouting fire in a crowded theater” and others — will almost certainly be used by those in power against the very people you’re trying to protect.
What I am seeing here by Midd Student and some others, is a form of intellectual dishonesty. There can be NO defense for what happened at Middlebury. None. And the administration hiding behind some false shield to prevent knowing what steps were taken is just flat unacceptable.
For those interested, here is the best thought I could find on Freedom of Speech and Thought.
“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”
― Noam Chomsky
And here are 250 more.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/freedom-of-speech
The greatest strength of the United States is the freedom to think different thoughts. And to express those thoughts. All else is tyranny in disguise.
This freedom has led to the creation and invention of myriad things that make our lives better, for the most part. Most of the Nobel’s are won by people living in the US and Great Britain because of that freedom to think new thoughts. And they are not necessarily native born. They come here to experience that freedom that they don’t have in their own countries of origin.
So, all arguments, however well couched and explicated, that would lead to the curtailment of that most precious of freedoms, are specious in their base.
Hi Jeff!
Yes, you’re right, I shouldn’t written “rights to civil disobedience” but rather “peaceful protest” (was trying to draw a distinction between what happened inside of the hall and what may have happened outside). The ‘inevitability of punishment’–or “the only way to make change is through appealing to people by showcasing unjust punishment”–argument just doesn’t work for me… yes, sometimes that may be most effective, but it’s not the only way to make change.
I think any forms of protest/dissent can lead to social change, including those that don’t necessarily have an explicit “ask” for a policy change tied to it (although, yes, that *may* be most effective), and even dissent that is seen as “uncivil” (i.e. “rioting”, like at Stonewall) … while we can think strategically about what protest ‘looks best’ in the public eye, or is ‘most effective’, and we can study history to help us further understand, I would say that the civil disobedience practiced by the leaders that you mentioned, while powerful and in some ways very effective, is not the only way to make social/political change (if that’s what we’re talking about)… can we measure the relative impacts of MLK vs the Black Panthers? I’m not trying to be facetious, I just don’t think that it’s that clear cut. Social change happens in many ways — I think that’s what professor’s believe when they ask us for “dialogue” on “controversial subjects” … arrest and related media campaigns, while powerful, are not the only action that gives rise to social change. The protest, while not perfect, gave rise to significant conversation on campus and nationally… we can’t yet necessarily say if it has/will push Midd in the direction that protesters want it to in the longer run (maybe it won’t)… but we can say that there were impacts independent of the possibility of protesters getting punished. Here’s an article by a Midd prof that speaks to some of those ideas: https://medium.com/@linusvanpelt/notes-from-a-burlington-jail-cbda97fd015e
Here’s Midd’s harassment policy: http://www.middlebury.edu/about/handbook/misc/antiharassment
Not trying to avoid talking to your specific point, but I do find it strange that people have been talking so much theoretically about how power operates in speech debates but don’t talk about it in this case specifically, where it’s very obvious who has power and who doesn’t.
I have to go to dinner but if I have time in the next week, I’ll continue to engage here.
Current Midd: “…can we measure the relative impacts of MLK vs the Black Panthers? I’m not trying to be facetious, I just don’t think that it’s that clear cut.”
It’s pretty clear-cut. MLK’s campaigns were a major factor in bringing about the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, which destroyed the Jim Crow system and worked lasting and profound change in American life (while, of course, not solving all racial problems for all time — that’s the false standard that too many apply nowadays). The Black Panthers, by contrast, called for a revolution that never came, and their threats of violence gave ammunition to reactionary efforts, starting with George Wallace’s and Richard Nixon’s, that helped get some of those gains rolled back.
I agree, however, that positive social change can come through various methods, and would even say that greater militancy and sometimes armed revolt are justifiable in some circumstances. Those situations are rare, though, especially as long as peaceable and democratic mechanisms are still available. History is replete with examples of revolutionary movements backfiring, creating new problems, or leading unintentionally to repressive tyrannies run for the benefit of the few. Again, a contest of power, outside of law, tends to favor the powerful, and would-be revolutionaries who aren’t extremely careful can end up getting people hurt, including the very people they think they’re defending.
And look, I know this isn’t how Middlebury’s protesters like to think of themselves, but students at elite colleges are part of the elite. Most of them probably come from comfortable circumstances to begin with, and the few who don’t are on the elite track as of now. There’s nothing wrong with that; elites have an important role to play in leading change for the better. (Even MLK was “Dr. King,” because he had a Ph.D. Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X were largely self-taught, but that itself attests to how brilliant they were.) But this idea that the real struggle for social justice is taking place on elite campuses is narcissistic folly, and tends to discredit the students’ cause in the eyes of many who would otherwise be sympathetic. If you admire the Black Panthers, note what they actually did: they took the fight out into the mean streets, risking prison and death at the hands of the ultra-racist police forces of the late ’60s. They didn’t delude themselves into imagining that shouting down a speech by a sociologist, and then demanding amnesty for it so they could go back to accumulating elite college credits en route to a comfortable white-collar career, was “revolution.” I think they would have had contempt for most of today’s student protesters, whom they would have seen as basically posing and play-acting at no real risk to themselves.
Hi Jeff,
Thanks, actually for pointing out something that I find to be very frustrating in all of this: grandiose comparisons between college protesters trying to make change at their institutions, and activists who were part of broader social movements. I think if you talked in person with most Midd protesters they would not say that they wanted a national platform or that their immediate goal was broader social change… they wanted to ask this college, specifically, to do better by marginalized students. I used national social movements to make a point about why I don’t believe in the “punishments for social change” model as the only way–and to be consistent with your examples–but I don’t see Midd protesters as the same as the black panthers, or MLK, or Ghandi, and I do also find those comparisons offensive.
I understand the disdain for the ‘elite’ that many feel, and the way that that has played a significant part in the discourse around this event, but don’t gaslight Midd students experiences; marginalized students should not have to defend their existence on a college campus. That’s not police brutality, and I’m not making that comparison… but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be able to ask–or demand–a more just campus that is more inclusive of them.
On “tactics”/militancy: I actually truly wish that no one had gotten hurt at Midd and am saddened that people were. I wish my example choice hadn’t distracted us there.
While I’ve enjoyed the discussion, I don’t have capacity to continue here right now… however, in reading my comments, please understand that I am not trying to make broad statements about what speech should be allowed by the state (in that I think I would agree with most of you), but about how I see this debate impacting a private educational institution where many students are marginalized *all the time* (Middlebury has terrible retention rates for students of color). I see this as a discussion about the mission and role of this educational institution, and I hope that in reading my comments that’s what people reflect on and respond to.
Jeff—Great reply to Current Midd. Most especially the part about the Black Panthers. They would have sneered in disdain.
What they (the students) seem never to have learned is that revolution requires violence and risk to themselves. I guess they never read “We commit our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor” re: the US revolution against the Crown. A number of them were killed, imprisoned, tortured and lost their properties. So, as you note, riskless play-acting.
Ugh, sorry, ok, last comment! Considering the close reading going on, I don’t want people to get the wrong impression – – – It sounds like I’m dismissive of disdain for the elite. I’m not. I put it in quotes because the irony is that many on campus protested *because* this school feels like a playground for the elite, often at the cost of those with less privilege. The vast majority of the protesters that I know are those students that are marginalized on campus based on race and/or class and/or sexuality, people for whom the greater visibility that the protest created for them further marginalizes them, and many for whom the risk to completing their higher education has significant repercussions financially. Not saying Midd protesters (as all elite college students) are not, in some ways, part of the elite – just that that’s not a nuanced understanding of students’ experiences on college campuses.
“….marginalized students should not have to defend their existence on a college campus.” No, they shouldn’t, and they don’t. Just as matter of historical interest, I’m wondering when and why that particular trope caught on. I’ve seen it now in the rhetoric coming out of several of the recent campus disruptions, and I really have no idea what it means. When the Nazis took over Germany, Jews were literally expelled from German universities. Literally barred from entry. Jewish faculty members were fired. Synagogues and Jewish-owned businesses were attacked by paramilitary gangs. Later, of course, Jews were driven into exile, rounded up, forced into ghettos and camps, and then killed. Against repression like that, yes, one has to defend one’s existence.
But against a guest speaker? Against Charles Murray? On a pleasant, peaceful college campus? In Vermont, in 2017? How is anyone’s existence threatened? To adapt a phrase from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, this is really “defining genocide down.” Unless I’m misunderstanding what “defend their existence” is supposed to mean, it seems like almost an Alex Jones level of paranoia, just coming from the other side.
Full applause Jeff. Well said.
If one did not want to be offended, don’t go to the speech. Very simple. Using Midd Student’s argument to an only slightly ridiculous degree, if the existence of the speech is such an offense, how can the existence of Charles Murray ALSO not be an offense? Which is how things start going badly on that slippery slope.
It seems that Midd Student is upset that s/he will be called out for shutting down speech. That s/he can speak for these minorities and determine what is and is not ‘protected’ speech and that s/he should be allowed to arbitrate what is and is not ‘acceptable’ oversight.
This is an obvious fallacy and a dangerous one. But it is empowering to the students.
**
On a different note: I read something put forth by the administration. As of April 17, 30 of 70 students have been administratively disciplined. And they hope to have everyone finished by the end of the school year.
This seems an appropriate number. I just hope it is not just ‘a stern talking to’. I am hoping some of the worst and most recalcitrant students get their walking papers and that this is published at the end of the day.
And I am guessing that many of the remaining 40 have some information that they need to share (willingly or unwillingly) with he civic authorities as to who coordinated inviting ‘black bloc’ members on campus (if they are not actual students)
This seems very slow to me, but with the idea that lawyers are involved as well as criminal cases, I can live with that speed.
One thing I did not like so much was the assertion that faculty were not UNAMBIGUOUSLY in violation of the faculty code of conduct.
UNAMBIGUOUSLY. Which means AMBIGUOUSLY, they were in violation. Irrespective of that, they did not cover themselves in glory at this event. And there should probably be some AMBIGUOUS punishments meted out as a result.
Which brings us to the major topic.
IF Midd Student is indicative of the general Middlebury consensus of the students on free speech, than s/he gives a very pungent response to the original question by Professor Dickinson: Have we, as the faculty of Middlebury, failed in teaching the students properly about the value of free speech and intellectual diversity?
Yes. You have failed miserably in that regard if this person’s writings are any indication at all of the student body.
Please note, you are in good company if campuses across the nation are any indication.
Oh, s/he writes well, passionately and with eloquence about apologia for their actions and rationalizations that the ‘feelz’ of the minorities on their campus justify them having a riot/protest.
But the awareness of what value it has as a principle? Very little. S/he feels that s/he will always be ‘on top’ with determining what is and is not acceptable speech and takes umbrage that this moral certainty can be questioned, even by their superiors and teachers. Certainly the election of 2016 has had no lasting impact on that certainty.
So it seems Middlebury, if not Academia in general, has a lot of reflection to do for the academically serious and ‘less ambiguous’ faculty.
Hi all,
Since I’m in the middle of reading senior theses, and may not get to that long-awaited followup post as quickly as I’d like, let me chime in to make a couple of points regarding the latest set of comments from Jeff, J.Paul, J.Dye and Current Midd student. First, I worry that one of Current Midd’s points is not getting the attention it deserves: namely, that a significant portion of students at Middlebury feel marginalized, due to race, ethnicity and economic status. To many of those students, the invitation to Murray was simply a reaffirmation of their second-class status and they felt compelled to act. As students who have taken my classes, or who have talked to me during office hours or outside of class, realize, I am in full agreement with Current Midd’s viewpoint – indeed, my views on this issue are probably more radical and passionate than are Current Midd’s. For starters, I would expand the range of marginalized groups to include those excluded based on ideology. And I have somewhat radical views on what we can do to ameliorate this disparity – starting with random admission processes. But more on that in my longer post. My point here is that if we are going to have a dialogue with Current Midd, and others who share her/his perspective, we need to understand what motivated those protests – not talk past them as if their concerns are not valid, which is what I think a lot of commenters on this site have done. That’s why you aren’t hearing more from those who share Current Midd’s views, and why I appreciate Current Midd weighing in so thoughtfully and passionately (and keep in mind that Current Midd is probably neck-deep in academic assignments as well!)
But this brings me to my second point – one with which Current Midd and others may disagree. The College is in the middle of meting out disciplinary action – as J. Dye notes, the process is well underway and, based on reports from my students who have participated in the process, the investigation is being handled in a methodical and professional manner. And yet, while I don’t disagree with the need to punish students who violated school policy, I do wonder how much they are to blame. Don’t get me wrong: my students are smart, thoughtful people, fully capable of making their own decisions and the protestors in the room understood intellectually that they were violating school policy (even though I believe many had not intended to do so, but got caught up in the moment.) But they are also students, and young adults, and they come to Middlebury to learn. And, when it comes to understanding the importance of balancing the rights of marginalized students to have their voices heard with the rights of other (perhaps also marginalized) students to engage with the views of someone about whom there is sincere disagreement regarding whether their views should be heard – we, as faculty, have failed. In this respect, J. Dye is quite right, and I am exhibit one. Although I held an hour-long presentation discussing Murray’s views, I evidently failed to make many of those who attended that luncheon understand why so many of us believe Murray had the right to speak, even as we passionately disagreed with some of what he had to say. And, frankly, I still think we are failing in that endeavor. Too often the two sides in this debate seem to be talking past each other – with neither side addressing the other’s valid concerns. So let’s begin by recognizing the validity of Current Midd’s fundamental point: that some students feel that their voices are ignored on campus. The key issue then becomes how to teach those students how to make their voices heard while respecting the rights of other students to have their voices heard too. I’m going to keep hammering away at this issue because it is so fundamental to what we do at Middlebury – we are a teaching institution, and our goal should be to teach students how to give voice to their concerns in a manner that helps their concerns get addressed – rather than acting in a way that further marginalizes them, as the Murray incident apparently has done, at least based on the national and on-campus reaction.
I will post a longer discussion of this issue, but for now I’m open to suggestions: how do we make Current Midd and others understand the need to tolerate views that they find abhorrent?
Thanks for that, Matthew. Speaking for myself, if I’m talking past Current Midd, it’s because I don’t understand what concrete circumstances we’re actually talking about. What does “marginalized” actually mean? As I asked above, what specifically calls for students to “defend their existence”? It’s obviously nothing as extreme as the ethnic cleansing of German universities in the 1930s. So what, then? Is there some actual institutional injury being inflicted on some students, some way that they are being concretely disadvantaged as a result of race, gender, or other identity traits? If so, the obvious solution is for the Middlebury administration to remedy whatever those injurious practices are. Students should be calling for that, and will probably be more effective in doing so if they can be specific. “Marginalization” is an abstraction, a buzzword.
As you point out, most students are young adults, and are probably fairly new to political activity. So could it be, perhaps, that some of them have not yet grasped that nobody has a right to win a political argument, and that losing one — though it might certainly feel like being “marginalized” — is not an injury being done to you? At least not as long as you retain your political rights and get to continue making your arguments? Example: I voted for Bernie last year, and then for Hillary, so you could say I was “marginalized” by my fellow Democrats, and then by my fellow Americans (albeit a minority on Nov. 8), when they overruled me and chose otherwise. But that’s democracy — well, not so much on Nov. 8, but still: it’s constitutional governance under our system. Marginalization in that sense happens all the time; the system even depends on it, because not all sides can win. But the “margin” is fluid, so maybe my side will win next time. I haven’t been stopped from trying.
Right? Isn’t this Day 1 of any Political Science program? Is it perhaps what’s not being taught — that losing the argument, or not getting your preferred policy, is frustrating but not necessarily an injustice? Or are there, in fact, actual injustices being visited on Middlebury students that the administration is refusing to address? How much weight the students protesters’ complaints deserve depends entirely on the answer to that.
Yes. There are marginalized students on your campus.
You have Alianza. How many times have they been dismissed and protested?
You have the BSU. How many times have they been dismissed and protested?
You have ASIA? Same questions.
Arabesque?
Queers and Allies?
How many rallies have these groups had? How many awareness drives and fund raisers have they had? How many social mingles do they have?
How much pushback do these groups get?
The AEI group had one (1) speaker and you had a riot. You had threats posed to members. You had a professor slobbering for forgiveness that he dared let this man come to speak without getting the ‘okay’ from the most aggrieved and hypersensitive members of your faculty and student body, who would, of course, refused him entrance.
So, as academics, based on this evidence, who exactly is the ‘marginalized’ students? Which students are being treated as beyond the pale? (Literally outside the cover of the law, where rioting is their ‘just desserts’ as outlined by Current Mid)
I will give you a hint: It is not Women of Color.
And who is teaching this to them? When a Republican is the punch line of every joke and the boogey man of every scare story, when their principles are openly dismissed and never discussed by the faculty except for a caricatured version with the same intellectual honesty of a Maoist Guardsman leading a Chinese Academic around in a dunce cap…well…is it any wonder that Current Mid thinks that Murray is ‘beyond the consideration of owning rights’?
Jeff,
I’m pretty confident Current Midd and other students are not equating the treatment of marginalized students at Middlebury with ethnic cleansing of German Universities! In my conversations with students about this issue, one common complaint is just a lack of diversity, whether it be race, class or political ideology, within the student body and among faculty. We are a heavily white, very affluent and very liberal student body, and if you aren’t in those three categories, you may feel marginalized. Not surprisingly, all three issues came into play with the Murray invitation which I think partly explains the intensity of the debate. (It is more than a little ironic to see students like Current Midd appropriate the traditional conservative argument that in some instances speech must be curtailed to protect community interests, and to see AEI and other students taking the traditional liberal position to defend the invitation to Murray.) By marginalized, I think the students I talk to just want to have their voices heard, and not necessarily to “win” every argument. But you are right that it would help to be more concrete regarding how to address these concerns, and also to make it clear how shouting down Murray probably wasn’t the best way to do so. But I will let students chime in on these points – hopefully some will.
J Dye,
“You had a professor slobbering for forgiveness that he dared let this man come to speak without getting the ‘okay’ from the most aggrieved and hypersensitive members of your faculty and student body, who would, of course, refused him entrance.” I’m pretty sure Bert wasn’t slobbering for forgiveness! But I’ll let him defend himself if he feels so inclined. In any case – you are right that conservative views are shortchanged on this campus, and that conservative students feel marginalized. But so do other groups of students, and we should recognize that.
Jeez. Um, didn’t think it would come to this. As Prof. Dickinson wrote, I actually do have a pile of work (tests, essays, problem sets, a job, research for a professor, still trying to work on campus activism, etc) and while I wish I had time to engage more, I don’t right now. I blocked this site on my computer because I can’t spend so much time doing this (although clearly didn’t work fully as here I am, on my phone) but I’ll post some Midd senior theses about marginalized students’ experiences when I have time.
But can I point you to some ~primary sources~? Middlebury Campus (the campus paper), Beyond the Green, and Middbeat are all student news sources that often have discussions about student experiences on campus, especially as related to identity. If you want to have a discussion about power, oppression, marginalization, etc, on college campuses, we should all have some familiarity with how the terms are generally used in this context and some familiarity with the experiences of Midd students.
Have y’all heard of gaslighting? http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/09/gaslight-people-in-social-justice/
Also, my pronouns are she/her, if helpful for future reference 🙂
Matthew: I will post a longer discussion of this issue, but for now I’m open to suggestions: how do we make Current Midd and others understand the need to tolerate views that they find abhorrent?
Here is the simplest statement: By Noam Chomsky: “If you don’t believe in freedom of speech for people or views that you despise, then you don’t believe in freedom of speech, period.”
Current Midd Student (CMS),
By way of disclosure, I am a hybrid. A member of a generation who lived and fought for civil rights, and numerous other causes with which I imagine you would approve. I am also a “student” at Midd, take classes, and actually attended the Murray fiasco.
I’ve heard many arguments about free speech in the context of the behavior of some students and Murray’s right to be heard. But what about the freedom to listen? I went to the talk, to hear what the man had to say re “Coming Apart” as I thought it might add to my understanding of how we ended up with Trump. I also was eager to hear Professor Stanger discuss with Murray his unpleasant and controversial earlier opus. The behavior of the protesters deprived me of an opportunity to listen and learn. I did not appreciate that, nor do I appreciate the position that you own the moral high ground that allows you to think that you can tell me what I can and cannot listen to.
CMS, you have made good points about marginalized students, and I would like to know, in your opinion who is doing the marginalizing? Do you see this as structural in terms of the way the college is organized by Old Chapel? Are members of the faculty aiding and abetting the marginalization? Or is it numbers of students who do not fall within the numerous “isms” you have noted?
In my view, the tyranny of the majority when it comes to political discourse at Midd is one of the more disappointing aspects of the place. God forbid a student voices right-of-center political leanings. Talk about needing a safe space and being marginalized; maybe even terrified. During the Murray thing, I spoke with a number of students who said they thought he had the right to speak but were afraid to voice their opinions. CMS, it’s quite possible I am more “liberal” than you, but I have a hard time tolerating the lack of respect accorded students whose views run contrary to the liberal majority on campus. I suspect it rivals the implied lack of respect you see marginalized students receiving.
In terms of economic marginalization, perhaps a cure would be ending the legacy system at the college as it perpetuates an elitist culture and takes up slots that might go to students that would broaden the social base of the place. Perhaps less funds should be directed to capex, huge athletic facilities, and fancy dorms which might open up additional funds to help support students with challenging economic circumstances. Of course there’s a counter argument that the legacies are more likely to pay full retail for their Midd education, and that some parents are more than willing to pay for all the physical comforts that the college offers. Take away those students, and maybe the revenue line drops and less funds become available for those who need them. It’s a math and a social problem worth a look.
And I’m not doubting conservative students’ experiences of alienation! Not trying to gaslight anyone 😉 !
Although, can we agree that there’s a difference between conservative and racist/eugenicist arguments? I would not want to silence conservative students speech–don’t think anyone does… but I would question/call out/try to educate students whose speech I see as dehumanizing/racist/classist/ableist/eugenicist, etc…. and I would want students to hesitate before saying things that are hurtful. That’s not silencing, but asking for respect. Most of my organizing is around this principle and I often engage with ideas I find abhorrent. Also, as a ~radical leftist~, I would not say Midd is that far to the left, so perhaps somewhat depends on your perspective?
Current Midd,
I’m in the same boat – my time should be spent grading, not here moderating comments! – but I don’t fail my job if I neglect my work. (Tenure is a wonderful thing.) You, on the other hand….so please prioritize your school work. You’ve given my readers plenty of stuff to chew on, and I thank you for that…but your efforts should not come at the expense of graduating!
Current Midd – I certainly agree that one’s views toward Middlebury’s prevailing ideology is colored by one’s own ideological self-placement, although it is interesting to hear you make classically conservative arguments when it comes to free speech! Traditionally, conservatives have argued that in some instances it is necessary to limit speech if it protects the public interest – traditional liberals, on the other hand, resist this argument in favor of unlimited free speech rights.
Similarly, I don’t think anyone faults you for protesting against what you see as racist/eugenicist speech (and yes, that subject matter is in principle quite different from conservative arguments). The crux of the dispute between the hard-core protesters (those who blocked Murray’s speech) and others on this site seems to be where their right to do so ends – does it include the right to block speech so that others who may not view it as racist/ etc., (or may simply not know what to make of it) cannot hear that speech? So, I think most of those commenting on this site would defend to the death your right to “question/call out/try to educate students whose speech I see as dehumanizing/racist/classist/ableist/eugenicist, etc.” – just as they would defend to the death some students’ right to invite and hear Murray speak. To them, the two options are not incompatible – indeed, they are illustrations of the same governing principle – one they view as the bedrock of the liberal arts education. You, evidently, disagree – you believe that in some cases some students/faculty have a right (and perhaps an obligation?) to prevent certain speech rather than “engage with ideas” you “find abhorrent”, even if others want to hear it. If that accurately characterizes your position, can you explain to the others on this site why you believe this? (But don’t do it at expense of your school work!)
OK, Matthew, thanks again, but Current Midd referred to “marginalized students here” and “black students here” and said they have to “defend their existence,” as if they’re under some kind of attack. What you’re saying is quite different: that “marginalization” just means being in a minority, or feeling that there’s a lack of diversity, not any particular denial of rights or unequal treatment. So the real complaint is just that there aren’t more minority students? Fair enough, that’s something a college could perhaps address, although there are limits: The fact is, the United States remains three-quarters white (and Vermont about 97% white), and the students of color who are prepared for highly competitive colleges are in high demand everywhere, so Middlebury can’t just order up whatever number it wants. Plus, its favorable tax treatment and access to government grants and student-loan subsidies depend on following laws that set limits; even a private college can go only so far in favoring one race over another.
I’m also less confident than you are that “Current Midd and other students are not equating the treatment of marginalized students at Middlebury with ethnic cleansing of German Universities!” I have yet to hear what “defending one’s existence” means, then. Look at the rhetoric: Early in this thread, there was talk of the protesters being in “survival mode” and of “the body’s response to threats,” as if we were talking about somebody getting mugged in a dark alley. At Claremont, where Heather Mac Donald was recently no-platformed, protesters published an open letter that said, “Heather Mac Donald is a fascist, a white supremacist, a warhawk, a transphobe, a queerphobe, a classist, and ignorant of interlocking systems of domination that produce the lethal conditions under which oppressed peoples are forced to live,” and that her “hate speech … projects violence onto the bodies of its marginalized students and oppressed peoples.” There we see some of the same terms and buzzwords there that we’ve heard lately out of Middlebury.
Now I think Mac Donald is selective in her use of evidence and fails to control her own pro-police biases, but come on. That level of threat inflation is absurdly hyperbolic. It would be appropriate in 1934 Germany — hence my comparison — or, maybe, at the worst moments of McCarthyism circa 1950, but we’re hearing it today on American campuses over guest speakers from conservative think tanks. It’s more than just an anodyne observation that there could be more diversity. Perhaps you haven’t been talking to the actual radicals? Or maybe when they’re talking to a reasonably minded professor like yourself, they dial it down a few notches?
If I understand Current Midd’s latest contribution, the term of art for denying that there’s a problem, in an effort to convince people they’re exaggerating or imagining things, is “gaslighting.” Seems to me the same term would apply equally well to rhetoric that tries to make the current circumstances of elite American college students sound as dire as the situation of Jewish academics in Nazi Germany. It’s an attempt to gaslight the rest of us into distrusting our own perception of reality. I agree, gaslighting should be resisted, no matter who’s practicing it.
And I’m pretty sure that when it comes to thinking about how to increase student diversity at Middlebury, my views are far more radical than yours! But that’s an issue for another day.
Also, Matthew, again, I appreciate your efforts in moderating the discussion. I’m aware of the job pressures you mention and have to deal with them as well, although (as it happens) not so much at the moment because I happened to have a light schedule this term. 🙂
Thanks Jeff. Part of the reason I am so easily sucked into this discussion is because in many ways I see it as more important to me professionally than my own research and even some aspects of my teaching (although I’m not sure the administration would agree with me!) But this debate really gets to the heart of what we do at a liberal arts institution, and I feel strongly that how we resolve it will play a big role in determining the value of the education Midd students get here. It also helps that, for the most part, we have people willing to engage, and to do so respectfully but also with passion and eloquence, on both sides of the issue. So I thank you (and Current Midd and everyone else) for their willingness to take the time to do so. I hope readers find it more useful than the one-sided diatribes I’ve seen on a lot of other sites.
Eep! Ok, just want to say I view giving an outside speaker a platform as different from students speaking.
Can’t say more now, but I think the questions you ask are important, Prof. Dickinson, and I’ve been about them a lot. Hopefully I will have time to fully respond at some point soon.
You might all find this article interesting; http://languages.oberlin.edu/blogs/ctie/2017/04/23/new-student-activism-stops-on-the-road-to-new-solidarities/
…I agree with the section on outside speakers.
In answer to your question, for now, Prof. Dickinson, I hesitate to dictate a position on outside speakers for everyone who protested (although I think that could be a generative discussion;don’t have time now), but I think it’s impossible not to look at this case specifically… I understand the danger of a blanket policy, because, as Jeff pointed out, harassment policies could very much be used against those with less power in this community (and I do believe Weber’s ideas about the irrationality of rationality, so don’t want to add tons of bureaucracy to the invitation process) … however, speakers who have previously insulted members of our community based on their race as black people (while on our campus–many have written about his previous speech here), are not people I want to speak here. And I think you have to look at power and history; George Yancy (someone brought him up above) is different from Charles Murray for many reasons, but particularly because we live in a white supremacist society not a black supremacist one.
And while I agree with some of the statement of principles that many faculty signed, I disagree with the idea that no idea is a ‘finished debate.’ And honestly, I think most of you would, too. Both because our institution makes decisions, which are political not nuetral (again, unavoidable–and often unselfconscious–bias)… while maybe not signaling the end of the debate, it signals resolution to a point where action can occur. While *many things* are not seriously debated on this campus–white people’s intelligence, wealthy people’s “virtue”… some things, including whether poor students and students of color should attend Middlebury, are, often. And I think this symbolically felt to many like an affirmation that, yes, this institution views your humanity as up for debate…and that that debate is an intellectual value. I would like the “free speech” debate on campus to go forward with those terms (not that I can or have been able to set the terms)… if you are a free speech absolutist, explain to poor and working class students and students of color why ‘debating’ their humanity (is that a fair characterization of Murray’s work? I think so. But if you’re going to argue this for all speech, then don’t just argue CMs speech isn’t as bad as I think it is) is an intellectual value of this community. Not appealing only to the abstract but to the concerns specific to CM.
Do I think students who present Murray’s ideas should be punished? No, I think they should be taught–that those ideas are wrong! We have different expectations for different members of our community.
Do I think the state should punish CM? Absolutely not! I think the mission (like the governance) of a private educational institution is different from the state. I’m not making arguments about the state.
Aha! Someone made my argument for me: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/opinion/what-liberal-snowflakes-get-right-about-free-speech.amp.html
Should this be translated into school policy? Maybe… but in sentiment that article articulates what I believe.
“I certainly agree that one’s views toward Middlebury’s prevailing ideology is colored by one’s own ideological self-placement, although it is interesting to hear you make classically conservative arguments when it comes to free speech! Traditionally, conservatives have argued that in some instances it is necessary to limit speech if it protects the public interest – traditional liberals, on the other hand, resist this argument in favor of unlimited free speech rights.”
Question have you ever during your existence watched the news? This is not only a false statement it’s a lie, it’s hypothetical, it’s moronic and delusional. You must have attended UC Berkley before Middlebury!
I enjoy people who self identify as “far left” arguing for human rights. The 20th Century is littered with the corpses of your nobility. Can’t wait until the College Republicans figure out the Outlaws MC has moved into Middlebury and knock on the clubhouse door looking for real security. You understand the tacit acceptance of violence as a political tool can cut both ways? The longer this remains unaddressed (and the student articles asking participants to ignore the Honor Code are awesome – you go Beyond The Green!), the greater the threat to campus safety and to the college’s mission.
I didn’t realize this discussion was back alive, and have really enjoyed reading some of the last posts.
Midd Student, thank you for joining the discussion, it is great to have your perspective and I wish you had joined earlier as the discussion is greatly enriched by your participation. Your discussion of how some students feel has been especially eloquent. One question I have for you is, do you think the shouting-chanting-clapping portion of students’ protest against Murray — the part that actually prevented him from speaking — was justified?
Dan,
I hadn’t intended to continue the discussion but the recent letter from our departmental chair (one that was misinterpreted by many as a change of position on his part against free speech) put Middlebury, and the free speech debate, back in the news. And you are right – the discussion has become much more productive in this iteration thanks in no small part to Current Midd student’s willingness to engage on the issues. I only wish others who share her perspective would join and help share the load – she has a dayjob as a fulltime student with coursework obligations after all!
And, as a reminder, I started this blog 8 years ago as a forum designed primarily to educate students, and to provide them with an opportunity to weigh in on political issues. Even though the audience has widened over the years, that mission remains my primary focus today. While I encourage disagreement on the issues, and I certainly appreciate the passion with which some of you defend your positions, I am drawing the line at ad hominem attacks on people with whom you disagree – particularly if the personal invective is directed at students. That type of language does not contribute to an educational experience, and I’m not going to post your comments here if it includes personal attacks on other posters. So if you are wondering why your comment hasn’t been posted yet, look at again at the language you’ve used to make your point. If it involves personal attacks on students, you aren’t going to get published. Keep your disagreement to the issues and you are more likely to get a response. And if you feel compelled to make nasty remarks, direct them at me.
To elaborate on what Matt said above, I do not believe my letter to the Campus represented a change of position, but an acknowledgement of my respect for diverse views and for a robust debate. My error in the leadup to the Murray event was in not broadening the debate earlier. See my Twitter thread here for a more complete statement of my views: https://twitter.com/bnjohns/status/855923099363143685
My error in the campus letter, perhaps, was in not explicitly reaffirming my commitment to free speech. Free speech & respect for all are compatible with one another.
Midd Student, I want to thank you for your comments and for the NYT article you posted. It was one of the more thought-provoking articles I have read on the free expression debate.
I have been following the free expression debate nationally as well as in the context of the Middlebury community, and I want to attempt to distill the arguments I see into a dichotomy. My impression is that the free expression debate has two sides: inclusivity and free expression. (I am not attempting to speak for anyone – please correct me if I have misstated something) On the one hand, you, Midd Student, believe that when push comes to shove, as it certainly did at the Charles Murray event, we should value inclusivity over complete free expression. Charles Murray’s views dehumanized already marginalized students and thus his views were not worthy of expression. On the other hand, we have free expression supporters, which support Charles Murray’s right to express his views regardless of their marginalizing effect or a lack thereof.
The question then becomes, how do we bridge this divide?
Call me naive and idealistic as well, but I believe there is no divide. I think Bert’s analysis is correct: inclusivity and free expression are not mutually exclusive; they each feed into, and augment, the other.
Of course, this means that we all will have to entertain uncomfortable and even painful ideas, ideas that may make marginalized people feel further marginalized. Engaging these painful ideas, however, is an important exercise as a community. It forces us to reexamine our values. This debate on free expression is a perfect example of that exercise.
Furthermore, engaging marginalizing ideas gives marginalized people a platform to express to others the pain of their marginalization. I can say that after the Charles Murray talk I am certainly more aware of the marginalization felt by members of the Middlebury community. I hope others share that awareness and I hope that those individuals that feel marginalized recognize that increase in awareness and feel more included in the community as a result.
The key going forward is realize that both “sides” in this debate want the same thing. We want marginalized people to feel empowered and have a voice, and we want the community to be more inclusive to all. Free expression is an aid, not a hindrance, in the pursuit of those goals.
Midd Student:
Ah. Ann Althouse, a liberal law professor with her own blog had a response to that very article.
“I don’t think I have ever read 4 consecutive sentences containing as much bad writing and bad thinking. I’m a bit awestruck at the badness. I’m certainly glad that it was published. I was going to criticize it, but I think it speaks for itself. I’ll just say thanks for hanging your ideas out where we can see them. ”
So if free speech shouldn’t be free, who chooses? If President Trump and the Republican majority of Congress, with the majority of states also run by Republicans decide that Free Speech isn’t important…does that mean that it can cut funding to a bunch of enclaves of seditiousness and rioting all across the nation?
Just a hypothetical. Because rioting and wanting to shred the Bill of Rights with open letters such as this is just SUCH a wonderful PR move. Makes me warm and tingly thinking Ulrich is looking out for my freedoms that way.