In a statement to the campus on Friday, Laurie L. Patton, the college’s president, described “a violent incident with a lot of pushing and shoving” as protesters swarmed Charles Murray, the speaker, and Allison Stanger, a professor who served as moderator, after the event. Ms. Patton apologized to Mr. Murray, Ms. Stanger, who was injured during the encounter, and “everyone who came in good faith to participate in a serious discussion.”
“We believe that many of these protesters were outside agitators, but there are indications that Middlebury College students were involved as well.” “Last night,” the president wrote, “we failed to live up to our core values.”
Even before it happened, Mr. Murray’s appearance had put those values on trial. Now the incident has stoked new debate — about whether the protesters were suppressing or exercising free speech, and about who was responsible for escalating the disruption into a fracas that sent Ms. Stanger to the hospital for treatment of an injury to her neck.
MORE
Charles Murray is a reprehensible figure, but I simply cannot support the suppression of free speech, even his. Are the stupid things this man says the equivalent of yelling "FIRE" in a movie theater? I don't think they are. The people who got violent should be ashamed of themselves.
ReplyDeleteHowever, for Ms. Stanger to state that only those who wanted to participate in discussion with Murray were welcome was just plain silly. Peaceful protest is necessary in a case like this. I do appreciate those who came only to turn their backs as he spoke. Well played.
That's about where my boundaries lie, too: nonviolent protest (including noisy nonviolent protest) is just fine outside the venue, before and after the speech (and during, if far enough away to avoid drowning out the speaker); protest during the speech is also okay as long as it's both nonviolent and silent (and doesn't interfere with others' ability to hear/understand the speech -- so, turning backs, wearing black/other clothing that conveys a message, carrying signs, etc. are all okay, but signs shouldn't block others' view of the speaker's gestures or facial expressions, or of an ASL interpreter, if present; similarly, reactions to particular statements, whether clapping or booing, are fine, but noise should not be aimed primarily at drowning out the speaker).
DeleteIt's also fine to set ground rules for questions afterward (including time limits, gathering them in writing, etc.) as long as the procedure for selecting questions and questioners allows for as wide as possible a range of viewpoints to be represented.
But no violence or threats of violence, and no drowning out others' speech (even others' offensive/reprehensible/incorrect speech). The best response to offensive, factually inaccurate speech is effective presentation of counterarguments, on signs, via tweets during the presentation, through questions after the presentation, in op-eds, editorials, and letters to the editor before and after the presentation, by inviting other speakers to campus. . . .in short, there are a lot of effective ways to respond that don't involve violence or drowning out the speaker.
I thought President Patton's response was pretty good, and am hoping that Middlebury, as a private liberal arts college (i.e. not beholden to a legislature), will be able to lead the way in coming up with new norms and processes for enabling free speech, and maybe even genuine discussion, on campus.
Perhaps they can start with a discussion of Murray's ideas, and the assumptions, research methodology, etc., etc. underlying his arguments. I haven't read the most recent ones, but if memory serves, the reasoning behind _The Bell Curve_ didn't hold up to scrutiny very well. It was some time ago, but I seem to remember using excerpts as the subjects for dissection-through-critical-thinking in a composition class.