Rehnquist professorship questioned

Author: Ben Salkowe

The College's decision to establish a professorship in honor of the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has set students, faculty and administrators in an impossible debate over the merits of honoring an individual with a far-reaching and controversial record of legal opinions. Disagreement over the decision has transformed the traditionally uneventful, behind-the-scenes choices made in naming a chair into a campus-wide concern.

Students and professors opposed to the new chair last week called the professorship everything from a lapse in the College's support for diversity to an act of "symbolic violence," while President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz defended the decision to accept the professorship.

"I recognized, of course, that some faculty colleagues, if in the position to do so, would not choose to endow a professorship in honor of William Rehnquist," wrote Liebowitz in an e-mail, "but as President, it would be foolish and appear overly political and even small-minded to reject the opportunity to honor a former Chief Justice."

Students countered that there was no way around the political nature of a professorship in honor of Rehnquist, because either act, accepting or rejecting the opportunity, would have carried political overtones.

"It is impossible to be neutral when dealing with political figures such as Rehnquist, rejecting the opportunity for this professorship is just as political as accepting it," said Sarah Moberg '07, president of Feminist Action at Middlebury, and Morgane Richardson '08, president of Women of Color, in a joint statement on Tuesday.

Faculty opposed to the professorship explained the impact of the late Chief Justice's legal decisions on the lives of American minorities, women, gays and lesbians were also too great to avoid the political nature of a professorship in his honor.

"This is about real people's lives," said Laurie Essig, assistant professor of sociology. "To frame these [issues] as political is to dismiss the people who point them out."

Charles A. Dana Professor of Political Science Murray Dry said in an interview that he did not see how any former Supreme Court justice could be considered an inappropriate name for a professorship and disagreed with those who criticized the new chair based on Rehnquist's rulings.

"What would the new principle be that would somehow say that it would not be right to have a chair named after a former Chief Justice?" asked Dry. "It would be too broad."

But those opposed to the new chair said the critical issue was the signal that the announcement would send to members of the community whose lives had been impacted by Rehnquist's decisions.

"After all that the College has done to respect the rights of minority and diversity groups, naming a professorship after someone who consistently disrespected these rights was a step backwards," said Tamara Vatnick '07, co-president of the Middlebury Open Queer Alliance. "In the history of the College, rejecting the chance to honor a Chief Justice would seem strange, but in the current context I don't think it was the best choice."


The Commitment to Diversity

Opponents of the professorship honoring the late Chief Justice said early this week that the action threatened to undermine the College's commitment to institutional diversity and tolerance, making minorities, women, gays and lesbians feel less secure about Middlebury's support for their rights.

"Since Middlebury has been making a concerted effort to address issues of diversity in creative ways, it is quite stunning that a professorship has been named after a person who has systematically ruled against those who have historically occupied a very fragile perch with respect to issues of franchise," said Sujata Moorti, associate professor of women and gender studies.

"It's one of those things where I think the College should have stood up and put its money where it's mouth is," said Professor of Russian Kevin Moss.

But Dry said that Rehnquist's decisions were based on respectable interpretations of the Constitution on issues with extremely difficult legal arguments or either side. He noted that Rehnquist was not the lone dissenter in many of his controversial decisions.

"I think that [people] fundamentally make a mistake by assuming that judges are simply politicians in robes," said Dry. "I believe some of the faculty collapse the distinction between constitutional legal questions and political questions."

Opponents of the professorship agreed that Rehnquist's decisions were based on Constitutional interpretation.

"I think he was a respectable scholar," said Vatnick, "but that's not the first thing that anybody thinks about him."

Vatnick said people were more likely to identify Rehnquist, and therefore the College's new chair in his honor, with his more controversial rulings. Just as President Liebowitz suggested it would have been a mistake to reject the professorship, Vatnick said that the College, by creating the chair, had missed an opportunity to make an important statement.

"I feel like Middlebury has had the chance to be a leader in making a political statement so many times since I've been here," said Vatnick, who noted the debate two years ago over allowing military recruiters on campus despite Congress's discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell recruiting policy, as an example of the College's reluctance to make a political stand.

"Instead they go along, or decide to wait and see what other colleges are going to be doing," said Vatnick. "But if we're producing future leaders, the administration should be leading by example and taking a stand on these issues."

Essig added that the new chair could also make minorities, gays and lesbians within the community feel less secure.

"There are all sorts of ways of making someone feel insecure, you could punch them in the stomach or you could name a professorship after a justice whose decisions made many people in this country feel less secure," said Essig. "When you name a professorship after someone like [Rehnquist], you commit an act of symbolic violence against people. You make them feel insecure, as if they've been punched in the stomach."


What's in a name?

The debate over the Rehnquist professorship has brought unusual attention to the decisions made in naming a new academic chair. The vast majority of the College's endowed professorships carry the names of wealthy donors and former faculty. But the newly created Rehnquist professorship brought to the list a widely-recognized name with many controversial opinions.

"It's unusual to have a chair named for some one who has an identifiable record that gives anybody a vested interest in whether there's a chair in that name or not," said Allison Byerly, vice president for academic affairs and professor of English.

Professor of History Jim Ralph, who will be the first holder of the Rehnquist professorship in American history and culture, said in accepting the position that he considered the late Chief Justice's position in American government, but also Rehnquist's love of Vermont, his visit to Middlebury and his concern with "pursuing the past."

"That doesn't mean that my political sympathies align directly with his," said Ralph. "These professorships, one of the great things is that there were donors out there who gave money to endow this professorship and there's no expectation that you pursue a particular line of inquiry and that's one of the ways that we all benefit as an institution."

"The affiliation does signal an uncritical engagement with the title," said Moorti. "Surely as scholars in a liberal arts institution that prides itself on inculcating critical thinking skills, one has to wonder why a particular title was given and what kinds of cultural politics such naming practi
ces facilitate and erase."

"If I were the one who was offered that chair, I would probably have refused it," said Moss.

Faculty and students opposed to the chair said across the board they appreciated the dialogue that had launched after the announcement, but wish it had happened before the decision was made.

"The fact that there's a sort of public conversation about this, to the best that Midd can be and the best that we can be as people, that's good," said Essig. "Too bad we didn't have this conversation before the announcement."

But administrators said the College does not consult with the community in evaluating naming requests by donors.

"There isn't any point in the process in which we explicitly ask people 'What do you think of a chair named for this individual?' because there's usually private discussions," said Byerly.

"Those are all decisions that faculty will oftentimes not get involved in, because they never know what happens," said Sunder Ramaswamy, acting dean of the faculty and Frederick C. Dirks Professor of International Economics. "All these decisions are between donors, College advancement, [the] President and [his] staff, and then the final dotted line has a signature and the announcement is made public last week."

Liebowitz's e-mail suggested that those taking a stand against the professorship were overlooking the Chief Justice's many years of service.

"Unfortunately, the academy has become so politicized," wrote Liebowitz, "that the endowing of a professorship in support of someone who served on the United States Supreme Court for 33 years, and many as Chief Justice, can draw protest from those who don't agree with his record."

Additional reporting contributed by Scott Greene.