Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
Logo of The Middlebury Campus
Thursday, Nov 28, 2024

Faculty casts close vote on professorship controversy

Author: Brian Fung

A motion reaffirming the College's commitment to diversity was narrowly passed, 52-43, by secret ballot at the Dec. 11 faculty meeting. Arguments for and against the resolution were among the latest volleys to be exchanged in the debate over a controversial professorship dedicated to former Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

Leading the campaign for the symbolic "sense of the faculty" resolution was Professor of Russian Kevin Moss.

"The recent naming of an endowed chair for William H. Rehnquist undermines Middlebury College's ability to promote diversity," he said, arguing that the College's actions represent tacit support for the late Chief Justice's conservative court decisions. "Rehnquist had the opportunity to grant civil rights to African Americans and gays and lesbians, and he consistently used that power to deny them these rights again and again."

According to Moss, the motion was inspired in part by a lack of communication between the administration and the College community regarding the decision to announce the Rehnquist chair. Moss's resolution called for the future consultation of faculty on potentially sensitive College actions, especially those concerning race, class, and sexual preference.

"We should have participation within the faculty," he said. "That we're discussing this now is a little absurd. We should have been discussing this earlier."

President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz apologized for the miscommunication, tracing the root of the problem to a visit earlier in the academic year by current Chief Justice John G. Roberts.

"[Granting] the request by the donors to have Roberts' lecture be the place where we announced this was a mistake on my part," said Liebowitz in an interview. "I didn't think through the implications of folks coming to hear the Chief Justice, and instead hearing about the chair given in honor of William Rehnquist."

In a letter to the College that was read aloud during the meeting, Jim Ralph, professor of History and the recipient of the Rehnquist professorship, claimed that there was nothing inherently conservative about the decision to establish the chair in Rehnquist's name.

"Holding the professorship does not make one an intellectual follower of the honoree," said Ralph.

A number of other prominent professors spoke on Rehnquist's behalf, defending his court record as a set of legal decisions that, despite their sometimes far-reaching effect on American politics, were in themselves simply an interpretation of the United States Constitution and nothing more.

Charles A. Dana Professor of Political Science Murray Dry cautioned the community against equating "judicial action with political action." Dry said that Rehnquist's court opinions are hardly an accurate indication of the late Chief Justice's personal politics.

By contrast, Moss argued that Rehnquist's own views on contentious issues had a major influence on his decisions, whether the faculty acknowledged them or not.

"The makeup of the Court determines what kind of decisions are made," he said. "If it were a completely transparent and apolitical body, then it wouldn't matter who was on the Court. The reason it matters, and the reason that there are political battles over confirmation of justices, is that it is in fact political."

G. Nye and A. Walker Boardman Professor of Mental and Moral Science Paul Nelson drew an analogy from his own experiences. Nelson argued that the namesake of a professorship should have little bearing on the nature of the recipient's work.

"This is not the professorship of William H. Rehnquist Studies," he said. "That would be an odd subject." Nelson claimed to have felt no pressure to support the Boardmans' own politics. "I've enjoyed perfect academic freedom," he said, though he later admitted being uncertain about what the Boardmans' political views actually were.

Those who spoke in favor of Moss' motion did so in sweeping terms, appealing to a spirit of progressive equality.

"Middlebury College supports and believes in social change," said William Hart, Associate Professor of History. "I think Justice Rehnquist believed social change was neither possible nor desirable. The widening gulf between Justice Rehnquist and those portions of society, like Middlebury College, that believe in social change and diversity becomes apparent when examining Justice Rehnquist's position on key cases and laws over time."

Hart said it was "difficult to comprehend" honoring an individual whose actions were inimical to the College's values.

Dry agreed that the controversy presented a poor image of the College, but said it was the professors' motion, and not the Rehnquist professorship, that was the problem.

"What does [this] say to students that come and study at Middlebury College?" he asked. "That this is a politically correct institution and you'd better have solidly liberal views, or you're going to come up against faculty who are disapproving of you."

Dry stressed that the College's pursuit of diversity should include not only what he called "the traditional categories," but also a variety of opinions, perspectives and politics.

The lack of political diversity among those who opposed last month's motion was of particular interest to Moss. "[They] were all male, were all full professors, were several endowed chairs, were all white," he said, suggesting that many faculty members' opinions on the issue were largely informed by their own racial and sexual identity. Despite the apparent polarization of the faculty, Moss expressed hope that the discussion would continue.

Dry concurred. "I've been here a long time," he said. "I can't remember a vote like this. But it's not as if I'm going to stop talking to people who voted the other way."

In addition to calling for improved communications between the administration and faculty, Hart emphasized the need for dialogue on an individual level. "We faculty must own this decision," he said. "If we cannot have a free exchange of ideas here, we are in the wrong profession."


Comments