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!
Matthew Dickinson:
You wrote: “The only reason I’ve asked the AIE student chapter to explain their reasoning is to address George’s suggestion that the invitation might actually have been pushed by the alt-right as a way to bait Middlebury students to protesting – a protest augmented by outside groups.”
You cannot seriously believe that. Not really You cannot. If you do, find a different profession – you are out of your depth in the current one.
I am appalled at what I see today on college campuses, just appalled.
The one place and time that people should ABSOLUTELY be challenged by ideas they loath, distrust or have disregarded is those years spent in college.
These are supposedly the best and the brightest?
From my perspective they appear to be Molly coddled, spoiled children who may have reasonably high IQs but the EQ of toddlers.
I find it fascinating that the left and the MSM seem convinced that Trump is leading us to fascism yet the behaviors I see from the left seem far more in line with a descent to authoritarianism than anything that Trump has done.
1. Attempting to stifle speakers with whom they disagree, often with violence.
2. Attempting to ban books and articles from libraries, course curriculum, heck…even the internet.
3. Creating disruptions at political events of those with whom they disagree and often engaging in physical intimidation
4. Demanding a strict adherence to a political dogma by its members.
I will tell you this, I hire recent college grads on a fairly regular basis. Over the last few years I have started to develop a list of schools that I a) give less weight to and b) insist my HR folks take a harder look at the kids coming from. What is depressing is that so many of these schools are of the type, like Middlebury, often described as elite. Even more depressing is that the kids I used to look at hardest to hire, kids with good liberal arts educations, I now shy away from in favor of kids from technical schools and from more blue collar type educational institutions.
We have always checked the social media presence of new hires. Recently, I have been looking specifically for any issues deriving from the SJW movement. I have nothing against social justice but what I see from this movement, I have real concerns. I do not need dogmatic, emotionally weak, intellectually handicapped bullies on my teams. I need open minded, logical, articulate, determined, tough kids that can work well with others, particularly people with whom they are very different from and disagree with.
In my humble opinion, our leaders in academia, our faculties and administrations need to start taking a more critical view of what is happening on our campuses and the implications they have for the future. At the end of the day, these kids are the future. If they are this weak, this selfish, this narrow minded, this controlled by their emotions and intolerant, it bodes ill for the quality of leaders we will have in the future.
I suspect that we also need to take a look at the actions and words of our faculties. Are our professors encouraging this either through word or deed? From the outside, it would appear so. Are they giving these kids license to behave like animals?
Our college students need discipline and intellectual rigor, they need to be challenged in thought and deed and they need to embrace the challenge of competing ideas, they need to learn that you can learn something from your opponent, that you might amend or change your opinion or strengthen your own and the arguments for it. Temper tantrums are not productive and in fact are counterproductive.
Honestly, if these kids were being challenged in the classroom as they should, they would have neither the time nor the energy to behave as they are. Instead they would, as I did in college, be desperate to finish their work to an acceptable quality and leave time to catch some sleep.
Which then of course calls into question the value received for what I can only say are obscene tuitions.
As a side note, my daughter is a kid that is highly sought after by most of the top universities in the country for both her academic and athletic performance. She is writing off colleges and universities based on what she sees. Middlebury was not likely on her list anyway but I am positive it will not be on her list now.
Funny, but a lot of the kids in my daughters prep school are looking at the military academies. Not all of course, but 4 of the top 10 kids are looking at them seriously. I know their parents and they share the same fear that I have of what is happening on our campuses and what these kids are learning and they view the academies as a place where their children will gain not just a good classroom education but also self-discipline, an understanding of hard work, a knowledge of how to work with other people from very different backgrounds and how to overcome adversity. In short, a mental, emotional and physical toughness. The simple fact is that these other attributes are at least equally important to what is learned in the classroom to any future success they will have in life.
Honestly, I just do not see these attributes being developed on our college campuses today and I see it rarely in the kids I interview.
Alan,
By now you should realize that what I believe is not particularly relevant to what I teach my students. In this case, the “student” is a commentator who has raised a conspiracy theory regarding who really invited Charles Murray to campus. My response is to provide evidence – not opinion – regarding the circumstances under which Murray was invited. Evidence, I have found, is usually a very good antidote to accepting unverified conspiracy theories. If you cannot accept that you probably shouldn’t be lurking on my blog site.
Professor Dickinson,
Thank you for this thoughtful article. If only you could see the newsfeed on my Facebook, with hundreds of students calling other professors “white supremacists” and “racists” for wanting Charles Murray to speak. Not only was this event catastrophic for Middlebury’s reputation, but it also highlighted just how fragile the Middlebury administration is. I am hoping that President Patton does everything in her power to make sure something like this never happens again. But for now, I am weary and I can already foresee things escalating again if steps aren’t taken to solve this. Did you see that SGA is passing a bill to limit “controversial speakers” from speaking at Middlebury? They want to create a committee that decides which speakers are acceptable or not. Let me know your thoughts on this, although I can assume what you might think! This is a nightmare that doesn’t end!
“I’m wondering if we need to institute an actual learning module to teach students the value of the free exchange of ideas and toleration toward opposing viewpoints. Somehow, they think it is justified to simply stop speech with which they do not agree. This has to change.”
This proposal echoes the recommendations put forth in The Atlantic’s infamous The Coddling of the American Mind article which made the rounds back in September 2015. While such a learning module (and other efforts akin to Peter’s suggestions above such as evaluating applicants’ commitment to the free exchange of ideas & the administration taking a more public and robust stance in defense of this principle, e.g. the UChicago acceptance letter) would most likely be worthwhile, I fear it would only be a Band-Aid over the widening chasm between academia’s historic commitment to free speech and what appears to be a growing dogma of racial grievance/identity politics among incoming undergraduates.
While I do not doubt many current and former Middlebury students, including myself would have not only tolerated but familiarized ourselves with Murray’s work in order to ultimately engage with him as you observed, I would also note it did not appear many in McCullough Hall were willing to challenge the disrupters. Contrast what transpired at Middlebury with the audience’s reaction to protesters at Ben Shapiro’s lecture last November at the University of Wisconsin.
The administration also could have been more aggressive in dealing with the protesters. US Capitol Police have to remove disruptive protesters from Congressional hearings almost daily. Simply taking down names for disciplinary action after the lecture would have sufficed. I think the administration was caught off guard. I frankly was surprised too, although given similar recent events this may become the new norm.
My sense is that the fight against injustice on campuses has morphed into a dogmatic ideology of absolutes and existential insecurity. I had never encountered the concept of White Privilege prior to my arrival at Middlebury in 2008, but by my departure in 2012 many of my fellow classmates expressed it as Gospel, as if it animated every interaction on campus and in society at large without regard for actual individual intent.
Insensitive comments were instantaneously considered purposefully malicious microaggressions by some of my classmates instead of uninformed remarks. As the son of an Indonesian-Chinese father and Caucasian American mother, I too encountered uninformed remarks or inquiries on campus but overwhelmingly felt the intent of the speaker was not to harm or belittle me; more often than not it was motivated by genuine curiosity which I used as an opportunity to inform and educate.
And when I encountered remarks motivated by actual malice, I ignored it. I’m thankful I was never actually harassed, but the College has rules against actual harassment to protect students. I do not doubt that some former and current students endure(d) worse than what I did, but the language and ideas expressed by those on campus who claim to fight against injustice make it seem as if oppressed students are under an unrelenting torrent of injustice and abuse that threatens not only their psychological well-being but also their very existence. I found and still find it hard to believe such a reality exists at Middlebury.
As you observed in regard to the Middbeat article, a mob of aggressive and later violent protesters was somehow converted into a gaggle of victims through Orwellian gymnastics. This is the new identity politics dogma which has arrived at Middlebury. This is how noting a potential role for genes in affecting IQ is converted to white nationalism, misogyny, homophobia, etc. An increasingly vocal segment of the student body, and perhaps some faculty members, are buying into this dogma. One only needs to read the last paragraph of the Middbeat post: “The administration’s support of a platform for white nationalist speech was an intense act of aggression towards the most marginalized members of the Middlebury community. Though President Laurie Patton stated her disagreement with many of Murray’s views, by sharing a stage with him and designating his non-peer reviewed work as academically valuable, she effectively LEGITIMIZED him.” (emphasis added)
Similar language is displayed in drafts of open letters by Middlebury alumni being circulated (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DyJk5DPKiiCnjTnmJyjvNm9DL17RY5Sr240yyqSYRh4/edit?userstoinvite=lauren.adira%40gmail.com&ts=58bafbac&actionButton=1): “[T]he college chose to endanger [marginalized students’] mental health by giving a platform to a man that invalidates and threatens their very existence.” Charles Murray coming to campus is one step removed from the return to slavery, Einsatzgruppen or death squads cleansing Java of Chinese Communists, Manzanar, or Jim Crow.
What was previously viewed as spirited debate is now seen as a pitched battle for existence. How can one engage in an intellectual debate or discussion with Charles Murray when he is a threat to your very existence and humanity? Why would someone even want to legitimize someone who delegitimizes them? Ideas and words that do not comport with the new dogma are not only hate speech, they are considered acts of violence which threaten marginalized students’ existence and mental health.
It is no surprise then that some students believed it was not only their right but their duty to shut down the lecture. Although those who hold to this dogma may currently be in the minority, I expect it will become increasingly entrenched at Middlebury. It is an effect of identity politics’ growing presence in the American consciousness and what I suspect is the result of formally exposing students in primary and secondary education to critical race theory, in conjunction with a very vocal informal online presence that has permeated into social media.
You may recall one discussion from our 2012 US Congress seminar regarding why the Southern states shifted to voting overwhelmingly for the Republican Party, one of my favorite memories from that seminar. You asked us what we thought was the reason for Southern support of the GOP and if I recall correctly, the majority of responses singled out racism. You then explained Polsby’s theory of the migration of industrialists from the North to the South made possible by the invention of air conditioning, which was initially met with disbelief. That discussion was emblematic of the hyperconsciousness of race and identity at Middlebury. So, although probably the vast majority of students at Middlebury did not participate in the disruption, I would wager a not insignificant amount of the student body is at least sympathetic to the idea of hate speech trumping free speech to protect aggrieved minorities and identities from harm.
Much like affirmative action is a Band-Aid for systemic problems that lead to poor preparation for tertiary education, future efforts at Middlebury to foster a culture dedicated to freedom of speech will probably be too little too late. There is only so much the faculty and administration can do to unravel years of students being told that racial and other injustice is a systemic specter in American society which must be sought out and destroyed at all costs even if that means infringing on free speech. It will become increasingly difficult to teach students that the importance of the free exchange of ideas and liberal education must sometimes outweigh the discomfort of being exposed to speech and arguments they disagree with or find offensive. The administration/faculty and some students are essentially dealing in different conceptions of reality; The Atlantic article’s proposal to implement Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on campuses might even be necessary to combat this distorted view of the world and American campuses.
Identity politics has a strong moral appeal given the history of injustice in the United States, an appeal that will probably dampen the administration’s response to this incident. The fear of being branded a racist is equally strong. It will take a courageous faculty and administration at Middlebury to educate a student body that is drifting further away from supporting free speech and to resist calls to implement policies that only further worsen the cognitive distortion.
Hi Elsa,
The first question I would ask the SGA is whether the Committee would lay out a set of guidelines that defines “controversial” speakers in a way that everyone could agree. If not, then they are opening themselves up for charges that their guidelines are a thinly-veiled effort to censor speech with which they disagree. For example, I could see how conservatives on campus (admittedly, there are not many) might think Al Sharpton was controversial. Or Angela Davis. In general, I think “controversial” by itself is a very poor metric for determining who should be invited. We invited Supreme Court Justice John Roberts to give a talk, and Bush spokesperson Ari Fleischer. Both were viewed as “controversial” by a significant portion of people, but I think many people also learned a lot from their talks.
Sharon,
The College has sponsored an independent investigation to see whether anyone violated the College code of conduct. For details regarding that code as it pertains to demonstrations and protests, see: https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/28031831/middlebury-demonstrations.pdf. Meanwhile, local law enforcement will be investigating the incident of violence that occurred outside the event. It is too early to say what the outcome of these investigations will be.
Anna,
While you may find it acceptable to shout someone off the stage, it appears that conduct violates the Middlebury College code of conduct regarding how to hold civil demonstrations. The The applicable language is: Middlebury College does not allow disruptive behavior at community events or on campus. Disruptions mayinclude purposeful blocking the view of others at the event; banners or items that block the audience’s view; noise or action that disrupts the ability of the audience to hear (e.g., shouting out or use of a bull horn) or disrupting essential operations at the College. See more generally: https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/28031831/middlebury-demonstrations.pdf
Bill,
Thanks for the comment. You raise some important points regarding who has access to the “market place of ideas.” I would note that while the protests within Wilson Hall were “nonviolent”, they also appeared to have violated the Middlebury code of conduct regarding demonstrations. Whether arrests will be made is still to be determined – there is an ongoing investigation. And it remains a matter of some debate who was exercising the predominant power at this event.
Dear Professor Dickinson,
I wonder if you’re thinking as I am about Dr. Murray’s two critical questions, raised near the end of that account.
1. What is the percentage of tenured faculty on American campuses who are still unambiguously on the side of free intellectual exchange?
2. What is the percentage of them who are willing to express that position openly?
I suspect the first number is more than 50, but probably less than 66. Gives me no joy to think that.
On the second, though, hinges far more. There is clearly an intimidation factor that is causing professors not to stick their necks out, not to defend free speech, not to broach certain ideas in their classrooms, out of fear they will be perceived as “hateful,” et cetera.
Tenure is supposed to protect them from that kind of intimidation. I suspect it no longer is enough. What do you think?
Dan P. has hit the mail on the head. The College cannot condone behavior that is disrespectful, immoderate and certainly not threatening. There must be an expectation for emotional growth, self-control and respect for others. This does not mean that one cannot disagree. Rather, it recognizes the socially important manners and conduct that contribute to strengthening our communities. There is an attitude and expectation by some students that they are not expected to engage or challenge others’ ideas. The College must strongly oppose this inappropriate sense of ‘entitlement’ and instead provide every opportunity to engage in debate, rebuttal and informed challenge to controversial ideas. The most disturbing element of the behavior at Mr. Murray’s speech to my mind was that the ostensibly ‘brilliant’ Middlebury students were unwilling and/or unable to consider and challenge Mr. Murray’s statements and ideas. This is a demonstrable failure of the institution, in addition to the inability to retain control of the proceedings. As Mr. Murray has posted today, it will be very revealing of the institution’s values and principles whether sanctions are imposed for breaches of the code of conduct. The justice of Solomon would be to require each identified protestor to write an explication and critique of whichever of Mr. Murray’s views they protested with their sign or chant. in combination with the internal assessment that is ongoing, this exercise might contribute to the individual and institutional learning that we all hope springs from this event.
Louise Tiemann – your post is perceptive and well written. I suggest that the ‘market’ will ultimately decide the fate of schools like Middlebury if they don’t address the ‘cognitive distortion’ you reference. Dan P. has mentioned the attraction of the military academies. Our neighbor has chosen to attend BYU (and she is not a Mormon but does not want to engage in the culture wars, and is encouraged by the ‘dry’ campus and respectful relations between the sexes). Our own daughter has declined to apply to schools that appear to be riven with concerns of ‘social justice’ that substantially compromise the educational aspect. In a competitive market, it is this freedom to choose that will ‘correct’ deviations that erode the value of a College education.
I would like to invite all these people down to my neck of the woods in the Heart of Dixie and try this. Us good ol boys, rednecks, (or what ever you want to call us we will proudly own it) we will give you a fantastic education on what our State and U.S. Constitutional rights are. For you violent ones we can give you a personnel one on one tutoring. These kids, Professors and faculty are vile and a waste of oxygen. I would also like to put blame squarely where it belongs, that is on the disgusting way MOST of higher learning educators brainwash their students into a liberal and socialist ideology. This crap does not belong in the classroom. Also, as someone who lives 12-1500 miles away from your disgusting college let it be known that you did not get a black eye from this you got murdered. I do not know 1 liberal, conservative, socialist or any one that condones or agrees with this. There needs to be faculty members fired, students expelled and criminal charges filed on person or persons responsible for the assault on the female professor. P.S. After posting this story on face book having only 738 friends I have 128,306 comments, not 1 positive.
Denman,
You pull no punches! I should point out, however, that in your effort to paint all of the Middlebury community – administration, faculty and students – with a rather indiscriminate brush, you ignore the fact that the College administration, supported by much of the faculty (how much is a matter of conjecture) agreed to the student AEI chapter’s request to invite Charles Murray to campus. Moreover, of the roughly 2,500 undergraduate, perhaps a 100 or so were active participants in the protest, and a smaller number sought to prevent Murray from speaking altogether. So, you need not invite all of us down for some basic civics lessons and I would hope you agree that not all of us are “vile and a waste of oxygen.”
Louis Tiemann–
I audited the seminar on Congress that you mentioned, and I also was your classmate in the course on Contemporary Chinese Politics. I always had the sense that you were one of the smartest people in the room (not including Prof. Dickinson, of course 🙂 ). From what I see, I likely wasn’t wrong.
Anyone should see that you have taken full advantage of a Midd education without succumbing to the mind-numbing zeitgeist which you and others have noted. That does not surprise me. Your comments are among the most insightful on this blog. And perhaps, just perhaps, your writing will dispel the silly notion that all the students at Midd are coddled and unworthy of a college education.
Be well.
Professor Dickinson,
Thank you for signing this statement.
https://freeinquiryblog.wordpress.com/
@Alex D Tokewell and @Jeff Smith
My response may seem “different” because it’s coming from the heart instead of the head. Intellectual commentary and discussion is a nice privilege to be able to have but it’s not going to solve our problems. Love is the only thing that will get us out of this mess. If you don’t agree, that is okay. But emotion is not “less constructive.” Emotional strength is full of empathy, love, understanding and compassion towards others.
I think humans have a right to be able to exist in a “safe space” as in ya know, the inalienable right “to be as you are.” Not some make-believe outside “safe space” of a college bubble but as in personal sovereignty. Like, “I am allowed to be here and not feel threatened to be myself.” I take it from your response that you have never lived in fear? That you have never been raped and wanted to get an abortion? Or lived in poverty? Or been abused as a child? Have you ever been threatened because you loved the wrong person or had the wrong skin color? Are you disabled? Was your heath care taken away from you? Oh, it seems the alt-right is so sensitive these days. They can’t seem to handle a little tough talk from women, POC or gays? What I want to say to them, is—how does it feel? Because you know, all the rest of us, we have been feeling this way and we have been attacked our whole lives and now it’s your turn.
The generation that is growing up will not accept the hate. They are choosing a different future for the planet this time around. We should celebrate their courage to say no to Hitler and the KKK. They are saying no to something that generations before them didn’t have the courage to fully say no to and stop. What happens next? Who knows? But I do honestly believe that what the world needs now is love sweet love. It’s the only thing that there’s just too little of…
Laslty, to everyone saying that they aren’t going to send their kids to Middlebury anymore, I “hate” to break it to you but in 10 years the most sought after job skill is going to be creative thought and free thinking. The world is already saturated with enough robots and rigid thinking. Trust me. That bubble is going to pop soon. What can’t be taught, and what is invaluable, is what Middlebury teaches—even in times like this. It’s not a tangible thing, with complicated data points, but you know it exists. Just like love.
Much has been said about the behavior of some students, but I am curious about your view regarding the behavior of some faculty. Assume for the sake of argument that some were involved personally in disrupting the event; what, if anything should be done about that?
Further, I read an open letter signed by a large number of faculty that made evidently false statements about Dr. Murray, his research and reputation, and the American Enterprise Institute (as well as other statements with which I disagree, but which seem well within the bounds of a difference of opinion). Clearly faculty have and should have academic freedom, but is there a point beyond which there is a problem created by such statements? The concern is that they are effectively speaking to the student body in their role as faculty, of which they make a large point in their letter. Do they retain any professional responsibilities in doing so? This question has come up across the country in analogous situations, but I haven’t seen it thoughtfully addressed and wondered about your view.
Mr. Dickinson, you state, “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.”
I wonder how much worse the situation has to get to warrant intervention from law enforcement, in your opinion. Mobbing the back door of the building, assaulting and injuring 2 people, jumping on the car, trying to break the car windows, trying to prevent them leaving. That is assault. That is a riot, not a protest. What if Mr. Murray had not made it safely to the car? Would they have beaten him to death on the sidewalk? (Dragged him to the guillotine?) Oh, but let’s not escalate the violence.
Hi MJ,
Thanks for your comment. No one condones such violence. But in the administration’s defense, they could not have anticipated what took place outside after the event – I was referencing their decision not to actively intervene against the Middlebury students within Wilson Hall.
MiddAlum88 — If you or someone else wants a “safe space,” that’s fine. It’s also fine if you define “safe” as not being exposed to views with which you strongly disagree. But then don’t go to college. (I’m saying to current and future students.) It’s not a safe space in that sense, isn’t meant to be, and can’t try to become one without losing its main purpose.
You don’t go to a bar and complain that there’s drinking; you don’t go to a church and complain that there’s praying. You can be a teetotaling atheist, and avoid drink and prayer, but you’re not going to succeed it by seeking out the very places where those things are normal. Likewise, if you don’t want to be near controversial speakers, it makes no sense to go to college. In fact, no-platforming isn’t even your own self-interest, because it will seriously damage Middlebury’s prestige — and thus the value of your own degree — if it gets a reputation as a college that can’t manage controversy, or that lets public speakers be shouted down and/or physically harassed.
Also, MidAlum88 — “Intellectual commentary and discussion is a nice privilege to be able to have but it’s not going to solve our problems.” Well, I think it can help. But even if you’re right, that just means that whatever needs to be done should be done somewhere other than a college. Because at colleges and universities, “intellectual commentary and discussion” is the basic purpose of the enterprise.
First, Professor Dickinson, thank you for the deliberative space this blog provides. It has not only been a sanctuary of reason during this particular week of insanity, but has functioned as such for years now. Given your position inside the college, I’m wondering if you might have any insight into the following question:
1) What alternative to debate and free exchange of ideas, if any, have the protestors offered? It seems to me that censorship leads to either nothing getting accomplished, as people must then retreat, silently, into their respective holes, or violence. Given these options, taking offense seems, in a pragmatic sense, by far the least painful approach, and also the most productive. Do the protestors disagree with this characterization of the options available to them? As human beings, that’s all we’ve really got…
Matt –
I agree with most of what you say. But I would like to add some thoughts.
First of all, I want to contend with the premise that it is inherently wrong for students to attempt to shut down a speech. A crucial component in the evolution of liberal discourse is not just allowing speech, but disallowing speech by making it socially unacceptable. The Civil Rights movement is one of the clearest triumphs of liberalism and one of it’s central victories was codifying racist speech as reprehensible. This isn’t a controversial idea – if someone invited David Duke or a NAMBLA advocate, there would be no question Middlebury would reject to offer them a platform.
So the question should be: Do Charles Murray’s ideas represent a real enough threat or is this another illiberal overreaction? I think it’s somewhat more complicated than many are letting on.
Two points on the current political climate:
1) It would be naive to think we live in a world where reason wins the day. Ideally, if an idea is bad it will wither under the strain of healthy intellectual debate. But survey after survey shows that our society no longer maintains a common understanding of what is fact and what is fiction. Not only do we disagree on matters of principle, we are currently lacking a stable foundation of truth upon which to debate, and as a result bad ideas (and fake news) spread rapidly. This doesn’t mean we should stop having hard conversations, but it does mean we should be more concerned with the consequences of giving a platform to bad ideas.
2) It would be a mistake to ignore that we live in a world race-based “othering” can be used to justify policy. The President of the United States is currently at work creating a new federal office (VOICE) that publicly highlights instances of immigrant violence. Even if you believe in a stricter immigration policy, it is hard to see this as anything other than fear-mongering. It would take a profound lack of historical knowledge to think such programs don’t have consequences – or to imagine this couldn’t lead to something worse. It’s not clear if the recent rise of white supremacist activity and reported hate crimes/threats is real or an inflated media narrative, but it’s better to err on the side of caution.
Murray is not a white supremacist. His writing is much more nuanced and thoughtful to avoid prejudice than his critics let on. But at the same time those ideas that he recklessly put forward can be used – and have been used – as a weapon to promote white supremacy. In this climate, it is at least worth considering that giving him a platform is indeed dangerous. If he wants to disavow his past work and apologize for what it misleadingly implies he could. Instead he stands by it. Hateful ideology can only succeed in becoming mainstream if it is given a veneer of legitimacy. The words of a distinguished scholar at a prominent think tank make for a nice finishing coat.
It is true that on Middlebury’s campus – a place where intellectual debates are still meaningful and isolated from real-world repercussions – hearing Charles Murray speak would have done no one harm. But this speech also presented students an important opportunity to draw a line in the sand that can inform broader cultural debate – where repercussions do exist.
That brings me to a second point.
Murray is not a white supremacist. His writing is much more nuanced and thoughtful to avoid prejudice than his critics let on.
It is hard to see a way out of the political and cultural disaster we face if people continue to paint the world as black and white. So even if we acknowledge the importance of the protesters mission, we should also acknowledge the toxic and intellectually dishonest aspects of their ethos. I recently heard a liberal friend describe John Kasich, without irony, as a woman-hating devil. This progressive hate-mongering is rapidly escalating in ways that I, as a progressive, find deeply unsettling. The protesters at Middlebury leaned heavily into that fear-based approach rather than grappling with the more complicated reality. I guess their strategy works for generating a protest, but since we’re just having it out in the comments section of a blog, I will point out that we should all seek to do better.
Hi Matt, from here in Ghana. What a time back on campus! I hope that folks will be able to move forward with more understanding of a range of concerns and worldviews, even as the community stand up for core values (which, admittedly, are likely to be contested).
So question: do you know if the Midd students in our AEA chapter, the PS department, and/or the administration was guided in any way by what the folks at PEN have here?
https://pen.org/sites/default/files/PEN%20America%20Principles%20on%20Campus%20Free%20Speech.pdf
They’ve put a lot of thought into these challenges; I appreciate this point:
“Bodies tasked with selecting speakers in the first place should involve key constituents in the process as appropriate. While it may be perfectly acceptable for an academic department chair to choose speakers for a faculty colloquium, for an undergraduate forum students should ordinarily have a say. Especially for high-profile forums, administrators should ask themselves whether particular groups or constituencies on campus have reason to hold strong views about a possible speaker and should ensure that those perspec- tives are considered. Frequently, controversies over campus speakers focus on the selection process rather than the speaker chosen; students complain that promises of consultation in decision-making went unfulfilled. Such complaints can provide powerful fodder to mobilize criticisms of particular speakers. When it comes to important platforms at the university where administration decisions on speakers may be questioned, administrators should articulate clear procedures and follow them.”
Midd Alum 88 – I have lived in fear and in poverty and was regularly beaten when I was a child. I have been threatened for loving the wrong person and because I had the wrong skin color. I still stand up for the right of the most odious, hateful human beings on the planet to speak freely (especially if invited to do so at an institution of higher learning) whenever they want. In fact, I’d like to hear what they have to say so I can judge for myself.
These students are cowardly fascists and they are largely trained to be that by the humanities departments at institutions of higher learning. There should obviously several arrests and expulsions. These kids need to learn a lesson in the hardest way possible.
Matthew Dickinson
I was raised to speak the truth and say whats on your mind. Now to your point, not all of the school are part of these Police State reactions to something they do not agree with. I did generalize to include your entire school and did so for 1 reason. Your school is not the first one to do this, I am also sure it will not be the last. The actions of young people in higher learning facilities across the country are doing their best to undermine, destroy and denigrate the Constitution and President of the United States. Whats the one common denominator in all of these incidents, they are college students. So I ask myself, what is making these kids act like this. My first thought is they were raised this way. Then common sense kicked in and you realize that this has not happened in my life time (excluding the Vietnam protests, completely different thing) so radical parents might cover some but it does not cover a entire generation. So I came back to the common denominator, education. Then I open the internet and read story after story of these radical professors preaching (not teaching) their agenda. So yes I covered your entire establishment, not just your school, the ENTIRE higher learning establishments. 450 Middlebury alumni wrote an open letter titled “Charles Murray at Middlebury: Unacceptable and Unethical.” I will bet that if I asked students who Herbert Marcuse is they could’nt tell you, but if you asked the faculty I bet all of them know. Hell a faculty member is leading the charge on the stage. So yes until you and all higher learning institutions get back to educating and not brain washing I include every faculty member and student of every institution covered by the “Higher Learning” label.
This despicable display of ignorance and outright fascism exemplifies the current mess in nearly all our Universities and other institutions of ‘higher learning’. They have degenerated into allowing only ONE avenue of thought (so-called Progressive or Liberal) and any professor exhibiting different thoughts will not get tenure, ever. We are infested and sickened by the logical outcome of rampant Political Correctness. Here are two items by an intelligent Aussie.
On Political Correctness:
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm
Decline of our civilization:
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/signs/chap9.htm
In Seattle (near where I live), at the University of Washington, a controversial speaker was able to speak but many people outside (700 seats were to be filled by ticket) were unable to get in, prevented by the mob outside assembled to prevent the speaker from being heard. They were physically attacking those people in line and finally one, after being sucker-punched in the head and his Trump hat stolen, and while being physically attacked, shot one of the protester in the stomach. He survived. The shooter turned himself in. No resolution that I’ve seen yet.
At the end of the talk, the police led those who managed to get in out the parking lot basement of the building, asking them to remove anything remotely related to President Trump. There was still a mob of 250 people outside waiting for those who had heard the speaker to come out. What does that say about our society? We are ill, indeed.
If Middlebury had been truly smart, they would have had all the exits blocked by armed police and a picture taken of every student face or their University card before they would have been allowed to leave. Then they would all have been summarily expelled, and not allowed to return, because they clearly do not subscribe to Middlebury’s terms of attendance. That would send the kind of message that people would understand. I am confident that no such action will be taken. We have grown so soft we cannot say “This far and no further” anymore. A very sad state of affairs.
The disconnect between the rhetoric of the Trump protestors and reality is astounding. For example:
The immigration executive order issued by the Trump administration in January was quickly challenged and struck down in federal courts. What does Trump do? He rescinds it, takes into account the criticisms of the court and reissues the order with a 10 day wait period.
In other words, he listened to the concerns of those who “pushed back” and incorporated them into the new executive order.
What more could “protestors” want?
Greg – I’ve allowed your comment to be published, but I confess I don’t see the relevance to my post, which was about the anti-Murray protests – not protests against Trump!
Mr. Everett,
Just to be clear, not everyone in Wilson Hall where Murray’s talk was to take place were protestors, and among the protestors not everyone engaged in efforts to disrupt or shut down the talk. So summarily expelling everyone in the room seems a tad excessive.
I get your point.
Howard,
I should point out that not all the faculty who joined the protest, or advised students, were from the humanities. Some were political scientists!
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the link. In the case of Charles Murray, the decision to invite him was made solely by the students in the local AEI chapter and, since they were providing all the funding (the College provided none), it seemed appropriate to give them some discretion in the decision to bring Murray on campus, and how to construct the talk by giving students and Murray an equal amount of time to talk/debate. (I strongly disagree with those who said in place of Murray speaking we should have gone right to a panel format.) or can’t speak to the internal dynamics of the AEI group regarding why they chose Murray. I forwarded their request for sponsorship to the Political Science chair who agreed we were the most appropriate department to cosponsor a talk by a political scientist on a political science topic. As he has explained, cosponsorship is not a signal of endorsement for the speakers’ views – indeed, we make clear that we do NOT restrict our sponsorship to speakers whose views we deem agreeable.
I’m not sure I agree that the process laid out by the PEN people is a better way of determining who gets to speak on campus. Once you begin opening up the process by which speakers are brought to campus to all interested parties, you practically guarantee that no one except the most vanilla (and hence uninteresting) person makes it through the vetting process. And, on the left-leaning campus that is Middlebury, I doubt any conservative voices would ever be extended an invitation to speak (and almost certainly would not get funding!) That’s why I thought it particularly important to let a group like the AEI student chapter make their own choices regarding who they wanted to bring to campus. When people do not agree with a speakers’ views, one option for them is not to attend the talk.
Nick – A thoughtful response (not surprising coming from you), and I thank you for it. I’ve had extensive discussions with my colleagues on campus regarding whether I think all speech needs protection? Would we allow a Holocaust denier to speak, for example? My answer has been that I hope my students never invite a Holocaust denier, but if there was enough student interest I suppose I wouldn’t oppose it, and instead would do what I did for Murray’s talk: make sure my students had enough understanding of the issues to expose the charlatan for what s/he was during Q&A (a process with which I would hope faculty would contribute). So, while I suppose we could come up with scenarios in which I might try to shut speech down, I don’t think they are very realistic scenarios. I also agree that providing a platform for some types of speech is potentially dangerous if it allows that speech to spread into the “mainstream.” Again, however, I think it is somewhat patronizing for me to protect my students from the undue corrosive influence of these types of speeches. Frankly, I think Middlebury students are equipped with the cognitive abilities to resist falling prey to hate mongering or other types of dangerous speech. But I acknowledge that may not be the case outside the Middlebury community. As for your judgment that Murray is not a white supremacist – that’s pretty clear to anyone who has read his work. (Evidently many of my colleagues have not done so, of course, and instead prefer to draw on selective quotes hosted at various websites to suggest otherwise.) That is particularly evident with the book he came to talk about – Coming Apart – which if anything touches on some of the same themes raised by Bernie Sanders – that is, the increasing economic stratification of American society.
Matthew,
It was not clear from the video that not everyone was shouting down the speaker. All I could see was a lot of people standing and shouting down the speaker, including on the media. So, yes, you are correct, IF not everyone was shouting, then there should be some sorting out from the video but it should be obvious who they are and they should be identified expelled, forthwith.
I forgot to mention the letter the University of Chicago sent out to their incoming freshmen this year. I’m sure you have seen it. That a University of their stature had to do that (and many faculty demurred—pointing out how sick things have become) speaks volumes about why our society has become nearly ungovernable. The Liberals have brought Trump down on all our heads by their blindness to the despair of the working middle class as good jobs disappear, mostly to automation but also to whole plants being shipped to Mexico, etc. Being called ‘deplorable’ didn’t help, either. Right up there with Romney’s “47%” remark.
I do have something of a solution for moving or automating jobs. Don’t stop them from doing it. BUT, auditors are sent in to determine how much in labor the company is saving, including SS and Medicare payments, and 50% of the direct savings are paid into a fund that only those laid off can access. These payments go on for three years. The SS and Medicare are also paid into the government in the name of the ex-employee so she or he continues to build credits, also for three years. During the first two years, the ex-employee is also eligible for two years of unemployment, besides the 50% of pay. This will allow them to adjust without spiraling down into poverty or utter destitution and despair. (It’s not hard to understand why suicide and drug use is up in that class of people, mostly White.)
At the end of the three years, all the benefits accrue to the company. We do the same thing for automation. That way, the benefits don’t just accrue to the company and the costs to the society and people involved, but are shared for a period of time. Of course, something like this will never get thru or Ayn Randized Congress. Come 2018, most especially when the Republican alternative to the ACA is implemented, both the House and Senate will be overturned and back in Democrat hands. Maybe they’ll do a better piece of work this time. The infamous Ms. Pelosi’s quote exemplifies the total dysfunctional nature of how it was with the ACA: “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.”
Will,
So, some of those who opposed the invitation to Murray did so on the grounds that giving him 45 minutes of speaking time, and 45 minutes for Q&A with students, was not enough time to subject his research to the searching analysis it deserved. They argued instead for a panel-style discussion in which Murray sat along side critics of his research. For reasons I offered above in response to Professor Isham, I disagree with that argument. In the end, the AEI student chapter was funding the talk and I thought it was their call regarding what format it utilize. I also thought it was important to hear Murray’s argument first, and in enough depth that we could judge whether it was a reasonable argument. Based on the deploring misinformation about the Bell Curve that has been disseminated in response to the Murray invitation, I feel more confident now in my initial judgment to give him time to talk. But I certainly would have agreed to a follow up panel after he left campus, in addition to the 45 minute Q&A. As it is, we created a situation where he looks like a martyr, his arguments get renewed play – and we don’t have the opportunity to contest those arguments. It’s the worst of all possible outcomes.
My daughter wanted to attend Middlebury a decade-plus ago. I took her to an interview and waited for her outside. By the time she emerged half an hour later I could not get off that campus fast enough. Even though Middlebury was the family college, going back generations, something disturbing was in the air and I wanted no part of it. We settled on William and Mary instead, which seemed much healthier. I suspect this trouble has been brewing for a loooong time.
My husband taught political science and often referenced the fact that the the political “spectrum” is actually a circle, where the far right and the far left meet in fascism. This is fascism of the left. Think the Bolsheviks in 1917. Wake up, parents. Find campuses where school discipline is enforced and this grievance mongering is not tolerated by the faculty and administration.
Christine,
I have heard from multiple Middlebury alumni expressing some version of what you have just said. It is why I feel so strongly about this issue, and why I have decided to take a public position on it. I worry that unless faculty take a stand on this issue, Middlebury’s academic reputation as an institution that rewards the free exchange of ideas and tolerates dissenting opinions will be irreversibly damaged.
Somewhere further up the thread here, I read that probably only 100 Middlebury students were involved in this riot (it was not a peaceful protest; it was a riot). Judging from the size of the crowds rioting, those numbers had to have been augmented by outside agitators; goon squads, Rent-A-Mobs, whatever you choose to call them.
This behavior goes beyond the norms of a peaceful, civil disobedience. Middlebury students that are found to have actively engaged in criminal behavior; assault, threatening, vandalism, etc should be immediately EXPELLED, then turned over to local authorities for criminal prosecution.
Outside agitators found to have committed similar behavior should be forever barred from entering Middlebury College property, then turned over to local authorities for prosecution.
My humble opinion.
Professor Dickinson:
Thanks again for hosting this discussion. I am interested in the questions I posted above, but can also understand if you prefer not to comment on the roles and responsibilities of faculty. An article today expressed pretty well some of the concerns:
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2017/03/07/middlebury-violence-faculty/
I would note also the statement signed by numerous Middlebury faculty:
https://middleburycampus.com/article/letter-from-middlebury-faculty/
It contains evident falsehoods, and other statements that seem difficult to countenance in any sense of an academic examination of issues or scholarship. Some questions that follow are:
How many of these faculty have read any of Dr. Murray’s work?
How many have any training or professional expertise relevant to assessing its merit?
How will these faculty react to students who may express interest in the themes of Dr. Murray’s work, which are prevalent in many popular and professional discussions of related issues? Can the students expect to be disadvantaged or punished by these faculty through the use of their discretionary authority over grading and other services students need from their professors?
Given that these faculty evidently value the prestige and authority that accrues to them by virtue of their appointments at Middlebury, do they have any corresponding obligations to conduct themselves in a public manner that respects its values and does not damage its reputation for academic excellence?
Perhaps the answer to all of the above is that academic freedom allows any faculty member to act in any damn fool way he wants. But I don’t think that’s quite right, and am unsure of where the bounds are. I am confident that we could hypothesize a kind of statement, if made, that would cause most to agree that a person was no longer fit to hold this esteemed position. I am curious about your views as to how we could tell when that line might be crossed.
Thanks for any insights you can offer.
Matthew Disckinson Thank You- you made my point for me. In your own words, ” I’ve had extensive discussions with my colleagues on campus regarding whether I think all speech needs protection? Would we allow a Holocaust denier to speak, for example? My answer has been that I hope my students never invite a Holocaust denier, but if there was enough student interest I suppose I wouldn’t oppose it, and instead would do what I did for Murray’s talk: make sure my students had enough understanding of the issues to expose the charlatan for what s/he was during Q&A” When should there ever be a consideration for any type of hindrance to the Constitution. Free Speech is a God giving Constitutional right that should never in any way be thought or consider for any reason to be stopped, censored or challenged. Yet here you are bringing the worse possible scenario and trying to defend it. Then to top it off you resort to name calling just because your views are not the same. Teaching is honorable when done right. Inserting ones beliefs into corruptible young minds is not teaching. Censoring free speech no matter the subject is a complete and total disregard of what this Republic was built on and stands for. People who do so should be held accountable. PERIOD
Hi Carl,
You ask important questions. As do many private academic communities, Middlebury has a handbook that lays out some of the expectations regarding how professors are to conduct themselves. I was not privy to what took place within the protest vent, and so cannot speak to the conduct of faculty. But I don’t think anything in the handbook says faculty give up their right to protest when they accept a job here. The more difficult issue, I suppose, is what to do if that form of protest seems to violate Middlebury’s guidelines regarding how to peaceably demonstrate without infringing on someone else’s right to speak, and to be heard. I suspect officials here at the college will have to grapple with this issue. I cannot speak to your other questions regarding how well informed my colleagues were regarding Dr. Murray’s research. As I noted in my email, I held an open session to acquaint students with the evidence and argument of the Bell Curve, as well as some criticisms, but it is not clear to me how many faculty attended. I do not think academic freedom extends acting “in an damn fool way” a faculty member wants! You may be interested in this statement of principles signed by many Middlebury faculty. It does a good job, I think, explaining what many of us believe to be useful expectations to guide our teaching. See: https://freeinquiryblog.wordpress.com/
Hello Matthew Dickinson,
It’s very good to see that there are adults at Middlebury. 🙂
You ask, “What should be done?”
My suggestion is: invite Charles Murray back to Middlebury. Record student IDs at the door. Warn students that they face suspension for disrupting the speech so that Charles Murray can’t be heard. And then *follow through on that warning*.
It was a huge (aka, yuge) mistake to actually schedule another room for video taping. That essentially let the mob win, shutting down Charles Murray’s live speech.
In the video, the students were warned right at the beginning (within the first minute) that students disrupting the presentation could face suspension. But the warning was delivered almost as though it was a perfunctory joke.
So I recommend that Middlebury do it again, but do it right this time.
Best wishes,
Mark
Matthew Dickinson
Thank you very much for the link in your reply to Carl. I feel a lot better knowing that at least a small part of academia has a view and ethics that are along the lines of what all America should think. In the future when I generalize on the topic of “higher learning” I will exclude Middlebury College and I apologize for my remarks where I did did include your institution.
Thanks, Mark. I’ve had several people suggest that a sterner warning at the outside – something along the lines of “These are the guidelines for peaceful protests, and you will be suspended if you violate them” might have deterred more people at the outset. But who knows? I will say is that a lot of students have told me privately that once a few students stood up and began chanting, they felt tremendous pressure to conform by emulating the initial protesters. After that the demonstration just snowballed.
Thanks Denman. You contribution to this dialogue has been very much appreciated.
Thanks very much, I appreciate your thoughts, and your efforts to engage your students seemed exactly right. The real life of these issues almost always involves competing perspectives that aren’t entirely correct, or that might shed differing light on the question. For students to be able to critically evaluate what they read — and figure out where the contribution may lie (or not) — is the real objective for such instruction. It’s too bad that many of your colleagues didn’t understand that.
The statement to which you linked is also helpful, and represents some other colleagues who do get it.
Hi Matthew,
You write, “I’ve had several people suggest that a sterner warning at the outside – something along the lines of ‘These are the guidelines for peaceful protests, and you will be suspended if you violate them.’”
I don’t agree that the place to give the warming was on the outside. The place and time to give the warning were correct. But it was given in a sing-song, perfunctory manner, and the students were allowed to jeer throughout the warning. In the re-do, that same person should say, “I’m not joking.”
And President Patton should have stayed, at least for the start of the speech. When it was clear that the speech was going to be disrupted, she should have come to the podium and said, “We’re going to start suspending students who cause any additional disruption.” And then she should have followed through on that warning.
“But who knows?”
Well, y’all can find out in Charles Murray v2.0. (And if that fails, in Charles Murray v3.0. It’s a very big mistake to let the mob win.)
“I will say is that a lot of students have told me privately that once a few students stood up and began chanting, they felt tremendous pressure to conform by emulating the initial protesters. After that the demonstration just snowballed.”
Yes, that’s where adults were needed. I wonder how many members of the faculty and administration were in the room? And in particular, whether President Patton was still in the room? (If she was, she goofed, big-time!) Someone needed to get to the podium and demand that Charles Murray’s talk be allowed to be heard. But that can be done in v2.0. (Or 3.0…)
Best wishes,
Mark
My apologies Mark – I meant to write “at the outset” – not “outside”! I think your suggestions regarding a more forceful warning at the outside has merit. 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.
Although I can understand your reason for making the suggestion, 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. After the emotions die down from this last visit, the College is going to have to deal with the issue that the Murray fiasco exposed: just how committed is it to the ideals of free speech and toleration for dissenting views? We are about to find out.