This past March, Middlebury College in Vermont hosted the controversial political scientist Charles Murray as a guest speaker. Murray has been decried as a “white supremacist” in light of his book The Bell Curve, which arguably supports scientifically-defended racism. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls Murray a “white nationalist” who “believes in the intellectual and moral superiority of white men and advocates for the elimination of welfare and affirmative action.” Clearly, some of Murray’s expressed views are contentious at best and extremely harmful at worst. But does he retain the right to speak, and engage in respectful discussion in an academic setting?
Middlebury students, evidently, did not think so. Groups of angry students protested his talk, turned their backs to the stage and yelled out organized chants over his words. When college administrators moved the talk to another room to be broadcasted online, protesters pulled the fire alarm and cut off the connection. Afterwards, protesters followed Murray to his car, rocked, hit, and even jumped on the vehicle. This violent display by upset students is shocking. Yet, I couldn’t help but be reminded of our own community’s response to Julian Cook’s chapel this past February. I want to be clear: I’m not arguing that those who walked out of Cook’s chapel are the same as the violent demonstrators at Middlebury.
Yet, their similarities must be observed. Both of these actions (walking out, pulling the fire alarm) carry messages of outright disrespect, regardless of one’s personal opinions concerning either issue. The message implicit in both protestations are clear: “I refuse to listen to your wrongful opinion,” and in both instances the rigid unwillingness to listen prevented any genuine (and potentially enlightening) dialogue to take place.
I was embarrassed and angry as I watched members of our Houghton community walk out of Cook’s chapel. I was even angrier when a student sitting in front of me jeered and made a public show of putting in headphones while Cook laid bare many of his fears and hopes. I find this unwillingness to entertain other perspectives, evident in both the reactions to Cook’s chapel and the Middlebury protests, deeply disturbing.
I personally disagree with Charles Murray, and probably agree with the opinions of some of the Middlebury protesters. Yet I am appalled and horrified by their actions. They had a rare opportunity to engage and listen firsthand to a recognized figure with whom they disagree. What better way to deepen their knowledge and learn to argue respectfully, and what better context than an academic setting?
I am proud of our community’s attempts to facilitate open discourse. But we cannot have open discourse if we ourselves are not willing to be open. This means we must relinquish our claims to absolute moral superiority against an unrighteous other. I heard several reasons for walking out of Julien Cook’s chapel, one of which stated that Cook was saying hateful things against the police and was expressing racism against white people.
Regardless of whether or not you disagree, Julian Cook deserves to be listened to. He had the chapel floor. Disagreeing with his message does not justify the insensitivity and downright rudeness of leaving in the middle of his talk. It is your choice not to listen. It is your own choice not to learn. But something changes when your actions hurt other people. Though leaving chapel is not as extreme as jumping on a car, it sent a message to everyone attending chapel that day: “I do not respect voices that are different from my own.” And that, in this college where we are privileged to interact with diverse opinions every day, is unacceptable.
Ava is a senior majoring in English and communication.