Letter President Liebowitz on the faculty resolution

Author: Ronald D. Liebowitz

The recent "sense of the faculty" resolution, offered in protest over the College's decision to accept an anonymous gift to endow a professorship in honor of William Rehnquist, diminishes, quite ironically, the very thing it seeks - the institution's commitment to "diversity." The resolution asked faculty to "reaffirm [its] commitment to diversity at Middlebury College," and stated that the honoring of Rehnquist "undermines Middlebury College's ability to promote diversity among its faculty, students and staff." The vote at the December meeting was 52-43 in favor of the resolution (note: there are 336 colleagues with faculty status who are eligible to vote).

The rationale for the motion, as presented at the December faculty meeting, misrepresents and distorts the record of Justice Rehnquist. Several of his opinions, many of which were extremely complex within their legal contexts, and continue to be debated by legal scholars, were cited with great certitude by non-specialists as evidence that Justice Rehnquist exhibited a "documented pattern of hostility" toward "historically underrepresented groups."

The one constitutional legal scholar at the faculty meeting, Professor Murray Dry, systematically refuted the superficial treatment and incorrect interpretation of the legal cases used to establish Rehnquist as anti-women, anti-gay and anti-African-American. Harvard University Law Professor Laurence Tribe, well-known to support the underrepresented groups the resolution identifies, praised Rehnquist as a "master" in his ability "to help the court earn the respect of all who take part in its proceedings or are affected by its rulings," and wrote "for that, and for the steadiness of his leadership, I will always remember him with profound gratitude and admiration." Justice Thurgood Marshall, himself a member of one of the underrepresented groups referred to in the resolution, called Rehnquist "a great chief justice." By equating Rehnquist's views on federalism and the separation of powers on the one hand, with bigotry, racism and homophobia on the other, the faculty resolution sends the message that if you agree with a conservative point of view, or fail to see Rehnquist as the drafters of the resolution do, you are somehow opposed to diversity.

As I reported at the faculty meeting, I accepted the anonymous gift on behalf of the College to endow the Rehnquist Professorship because it is good for the College. It frees up funds for other needs, such as financial aid, faculty and staff salaries and support of our academic and co-curricular programs; it is good for the faculty, because holders of such professorships receive supplemental funding for their research and teaching, which helps them professionally; and it is good for our students, because what a faculty member can do as a result of holding such a professorship redounds to the classroom and to the campus at-large.

The honoring of a former chief justice, though controversial because Supreme Court decisions can have such profound effects on people's private lives, was never a question for me. That does not mean I do not care about the experiences our students, faculty and staff have on campus, or that I would accept a gift to honor anyone or anything. However, my political leanings, which differ from the former Chief Justice's, should not serve as a litmus test for accepting a gift in honor of an individual, and neither should anyone else's political views. An individual's contributions and standing in his or her profession ought to guide that determination. To do otherwise narrows the range of ideas and perspectives a campus like ours is willing to entertain and debate. When that happens, we are a lesser academic community and our students suffer as a result.



Ronald D. Liebowitz

President of Middlebury College