In 2017, controversial speaker Charles Murray came to Middlebury a few weeks after the inauguration of President Trump. Our liberal campus was feeling quite raw. Minorities were under scrutiny by a new presidential administration. In that environment, a group brought a speaker to Middlebury to talk about a challenging topic and announced the event with very little notice.
On Thursday, Brianna Wu and Leor Sapir are scheduled to appear on our campus. Anyone can find their essays and talks with a quick Google search. Why then spend resources to bring outside speakers such as these to campus? In theory, outside speaker events could be an invaluable opportunity to have a meaningful dialogue, if we have taken time to consider this critical question: “Under what conditions do our students listen openly and seek understanding?” What good is free speech if nobody is listening?
After the upheaval surrounding Charles Murray’s visit, I was asked to sit on a twelve-member committee of faculty, students and staff representing very different viewpoints. Without explicitly saying so, we followed two norms that are necessary for the functioning of democracy: mutual toleration and forbearance. We had to show up with both a willingness to disagree and a recognition that antagonizing other parties in our iterated conversations could end our work together. Forbearance is a recognition that difficult conversations take time — if you start with the most divisive issue without treating the other party with respect, they will just leave.
The Hamilton Forum, the organizer of Thursday’s talk, aspires “to contribute to a culture of reasoned, civil discussion across political and intellectual differences.” As many of my colleagues know, I have long worked on fostering dialogue across difference. But since 2017, I have been consistently concerned that we are focusing too much on who gets to speak (the mutual toleration) without enough attention to whether anyone is listening (the forbearance).
Our job is to bring new ideas and new information to our students. If our students spend four years here and do not have their prior beliefs challenged, then we aren’t doing our job. As democratic practice, education thus requires mutual toleration. But it also requires forbearance. As simply stated by philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah, people don’t think well when they feel personally insulted.
This conversation isn’t just uncomfortable - it feels unsafe for some members of our community. The new presidential administration issued an executive order on Jan. 20 that seeks to “enforce all sex-protective laws.” Timing matters.
Sometimes, the response is that our students are simply incapable of listening openly. That “snowflake” narrative is wrong. It is also dangerous for democracy and for education. Arthur Brooks, former president of the American Enterprise Institute, argues that the most dangerous emotion in a democracy is contempt — a combination of anger and disgust. Hatred, disdain and pity feed political polarization. These emotions also have no place in education, which proceeds from the basic ontological assumption that people can change and grow.
We do not have a lot of conservative voices on our campus. I worry that we are not preparing our students for a polarized America. I worry that feelings of isolation among a political minority are driving a move from frustration to anger to contempt. And I worry about the safety and well-being of trans and LGBQ+ members of our community.
I also think we can do better than we did in 2017.
For trans folks and friends: you have my support. These events are opt-in and I hope you will care for yourself. Maybe attend a different gathering. A similar event from Vergennes several years ago was a model of more speech and joyful solidarity. Not going is also an option.
For the Hamilton Forum and other event hosts: critique is not the equivalent of silencing speech. The 2018 committee suggested that hosts announce talks early and reach out to other groups and departments. Lack of transparency and a short time frame makes it harder for people to engage, not easier.
For Brianna Wu and Leor Sapir: You are prominent people who have given lots of talks, so you likely have thought about the timing and setting. I hope you will speak to those as you engage with this corner of the United States.
For campus conservatives: there are other options on our campus. After the election, our community conversation at the Town Hall Theater had 70 attendees, including many Vermont Republicans. Students in a conflict transformation skills class got a hands-on workshop this fall from a Braver Angels representative addressing Red/Blue stereotypes. We are trying to structure constructive engagements across all sorts of differences, including political ideology.
This is the work of an intellectual and residential community. We are capable of doing it together.
