Which speakers deserve to be platformed by Middlebury?

On Feb. 20, the Alexander Hamilton Forum invited Brianna Wu, the executive director of Rebellion PAC, and Leor Sapir of the Manhattan Institute to speak on the “right approach on public policy and transgender medicine.”

While Wu, a transgender woman herself, has voiced her support for gender-affirming policies, she has also made plenty of criticisms against the LGBTQ+ community, which she has repeatedly attacked for expanding its inclusivity. Sapir appears to be a specialist in gender identity policies, which may not sound like an issue. But in this role, he has supported President Donald Trump’s recent executive orders rolling back protections for transgender people.

Do these two speakers truly form the best representations of ideological diversity that Middlebury can offer its students on a topic as complex as transgender politics in the United States? We believe that in order to foster true dialogue, a range of different opinions should be included in college-sponsored lectures, including the recent transgender healthcare forum. 

As we learned on Thursday, inviting two speakers who disagree with each other on stage does not necessarily guarantee that the conversation will accurately reflect nuanced opinions on sensitive topics. People with extreme views will always be vocal, and we do not dispute that Wu and Sapir have a right to their opinions. Nor do we expect the college to always invite people the student body already agrees with, but their speech on campus should not come at the expense of facts and expertise.

Inviting a broader range of people with medical training and relevant knowledge of modern transgender issues — people who could meaningfully confirm or push back on the two speakers' political commentary — may have presented a more impactful conversation for students taking two hours out of their busy day to attend a political science lecture.

The largely non-disruptive response by the counter-panel, which focused on elevating its own speakers and staging a joyful demonstration, was a meaningful act of protest at a college with a troubled history of public demonstrations against controversial speakers. The dance party held outside of McCullough Student Center exemplified the freedom of our community members to celebrate identity and free expression without hampering Wu and Sapir’s speech, providing concerned students, faculty and locals who may feel unseen by the ideas of the sponsored speakers with an outlet. 

The legacy of the Charles Murray incident from 2017 and its still-present effects on student culture at Middlebury were the looming context for the recent controversy over the Hamilton Forum. Questions about the correct form of protest for controversial speakers — especially in the context of a newly-inaugurated Trump presidency — sparked contentious discourse over the college’s sponsorship of the talk and what the correct student response should be. The experience from past controversies clearly informed the debate over these two panels; the Murray incident has continued to be a touchstone among the college community for student activism, free speech and the pot-stirring Poli Sci department. 

We were glad the two events remained separate and distinct on campus to avoid direct confrontation, as the legacy of past student protests still shapes the level of anxiety felt by students, staff and faculty over these controversial lectures. We hope the community can continue to grapple with its response to challenging speakers and platforming people they disagree with in a respectful, non-aggressive manner as happened last week.

One unique aspect of Thursday’s events was the simultaneous nature of these two talks, which had odd effects on student social culture and peer pressure. The development of the countertalk made some people feel uncomfortable with the idea of attending the Hamilton Forum event out of fear of being seen as choosing sides between transgender students and allies or the Hamilton Forum. These talks should always prioritize free engagement with ideas if students are interested in learning about them, and it is regrettable that some students felt their attendance became a political act. Still, social pressure aside, we were heartened to see many other students engaging with difficult conversations on a sensitive topic and showing up to attend the talk nonetheless.

Similarly, we are grateful to the faculty members teaching our courses who take time out of the scheduled syllabus to discuss events like this happening on our campus. Addressing these topics productively dissolves the divide between planned coursework and what often occupies our minds when we should be focusing on our readings — the culture in which we are embedded on a daily basis, and a key component of our education. 

The panels the college hosts on campus should be considered a part of the comprehensive liberal arts at Middlebury, and we believe that controversy just for the sake of provocation is not conducive to the college’s educational mission. Events meant to embellish our learning beyond the classroom should add to our experience by teaching us to think critically in new ways, not to invite more chaos and protest that overshadows authentic learning and conversation. We are by no means against the principle of free speech, but to let it flow without sufficient consideration of the implications for the college community is not enough to facilitate productive conversation.

---