It is damnably hard not to angrily condemn the Islamic terrorists in France this day. But, while all these recent incidents are horrifying, before we get high and mighty with a host “je suis Charlie” and issue blanket “we are better than them” condemnations of Islam, we should stop, take a breath, slow down, reflect, and learn. I’ve already read, “We don’t shoot and kill like Islamists when we disagree with someone.” Some of us don’t? We just had a bombing of NAACP offices in Colorado Springs a couple of days ago. Without going back to the Crusades or the religious wars of the Reformation or to pogroms against the Jews or the “Gangs of New York” or SLA, without referring to signs “Italians (aka Catholics) need not apply” or “No Jews Allowed,” do a lot of us always converse openly, respectfully, and civilly with people of different faiths, or do too many of us often take the high ground for ourselves, pontificate, insult, accuse, and condemn? We don’t have our share of puerile, simplistic, fundamental biblical literalists quoting scripture left and right in support of their intolerant views and actions, condemning to hell left and right those who disagree with them? We shouldn’t forget the equally home-grown intolerance bombings of abortion clinics, killing of abortion doctors, beatings of homosexuals, burning of Korans, demonizing of transgenders; we shouldn’t forget white supremacists, anti-feminists, anti-semites, anti-Catholics, and, of course, the KKK, all of whose close-minded stands and actions were and are self-valdiated in the name of their version of Christianity.
But, there’s something else, something that’s been sitting in my craw for the last nine months or so, something that is part of this story. I want us to think about a crime that too often is regrettably being committed on our campuses. That crime is an intolerant and disrespectful strangulation of debate, debate that is essential to reminding each of us who we are and what are our beliefs. By that I mean, are our campuses really open-minded? Are they really bastions of free expression? Are they really trading posts for an exchange of ideas? Do they really give a wide latitude in allowing disagreeable, even offensive, speech? How long do you think a satirical publication such as Charlie Hebdo would last on any campus?
I want us to think of all those commencement invitations that were stridently attacked last May and June by the holier-than-thou, close-minded, and self-exaggerated who were offended by the views and positions of the invited speakers and demanded that they be denied a podium. I want us to think about, as David Brooks reminded us in his column yesterday, the plague of all those cowardly administrative disinvitations of commencement speakers this past spring.
All this has taken me back to a June micro-furor on my campus in which childish, arrogant, and self-righteous groups loudly protested against an invitation issued to the ultra-conservative Ben Carson to speak at VSU in September. Filled with self-puffery, they resorted to close-minded, disrespectful insult. He was labeled, “branded” is a better word, “attacked” is still a better word, a “conservative darling” and the “dr. of division.” A call was made for the President of the University to display “assertive leadership” and withdraw the invitation. And, he did display “assertive leadership,” for unlike on other campuses where the authorities caved in and withdrew commencement invitations, our President refused. Rightly so, I say. These people were just plain wrong. Agree with Carson’s stands or not, we should stand up for free expression on our campuses. As Sun Tzu said, “If ignorant of both your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril.” And, even if you disagreed, you were, at least, better informed. Nothing is learned with ear plugs and blind folds, or an ostrich stance.
The one labeling attack on Ben Carson was interesting: he was an “affront to academe.” Why? Because he was a conservative? Because some people didn’t like or disagreed with his pronouncements? The real affront to academe was the close-minded call to bar him a campus podium. You know, when we talked of diversity, we initially meant racial diversity. Then, we added gender diversity. And, then, we added sexual preference diversity. To these we added ethnic diversity and a host other differences. We talk of the diversity this and the diversity that. We say diversity does all great things for each of us, that it expands our world by meeting and entering other worlds, that it forces us to reflect and articulate the “why” of our thinking. It does all of that. If this true, and I believe it is, we must embrace another diversity, one too often greeted with closed door inhospitality: diversity of thought, a diversity of belief, a diversity of all kinds of religious, cultural, social and political stands.
This past year my campus was celebrating “50 Years of Inclusion.” It was a celebration limited to racial integration. It should been expanded to include and embrace all who knocked on our doors to enter. If our campuses are truly Ivory Towers with lowered bridges for all to enter, they must be down for other forms of thought. The real test of supporting the right of free speech, that corner stone of American democracy, is defending and allowing the presence of expressions when you think such thoughts are different, disagreeable, indefensible, unsupportable, offensive, and detestable. Never have I seen in that First Amendment’s eloquent terseness, “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech,” anything said with adjectives such as convenient, comfortable, appropriate, agreeable, inoffensive, untroubling, acceptable. Were our Founding Fathers to have imposed such restricting and imprisoning and subjective adjectives on speech, that portion of the First Amendment would be hollow.
We all need challenge to our own too often closed certainty, challenges that chisel at those things we have set in stone. We need to realize that no one and no one group possesses all the truth and wisdom, we all should have an openness to the experience of the other. To be sure, it makes for a more messy place. But, then, what do we want? Neatness? Commonality? Order? Peace? Uniformity? Conformity? Certainty? Imposition? Or, do we want freedom, skepticism, inquiry, individuality, and authenticity. Think how poorer would we have been if we didn’t have those who got under our skin, pushed our buttons, tweaked our noses, got us mad, needled us, gave us pause to reflect, and caused us–forced us–to articulate. How much farther would we be from the ideals of American values.
Ever read Dale Carnegie’s HOW TO WIN FRIENDS AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE? I think many on my campus, and others as well, should. We all would be better off not starting off with a self-righteous, arrogant, and closed “I am right” and “you are wrong.” Instead, we should humbly stop talking and start listening; we should begin with a little humble “let’s hear what you have to say,” a bit of acknowledging our own fallibility, and a praise for the something about the other side. We should cut ourselves a little slack. Maybe we should say in word, thought, and deed about us and them, “our guys got some things wrong,” “we were wrong about this,” “your guys got some things right.” “you were right about that.” We’d all be better off having a civil conversation then a verbal pie throwing fight. By that I mean doing more respectful, sincere, and open listening and reflecting than close-minded talking, finger pointing, and pontificating. We would be better off overcoming close-mindedness. We’d be better off respecting and learning something from the other person with whom we differ. We would have been better off if people avoided the dynamic of combatants, had praised for the other guy, and acknowledged that no one has the perfect answer.
What we need is a truly fusion academy when we can taste all sorts of foods for thought and then make an informed decision for ourselves about what suits our palate.
Louis
An intricate weaving of diversity issues from the reality of this week’s terror to the university communities in which we live!
Dear Luis,
I usually don’t read your posts on obts but I read this one and am very impressed.
Maybe it is because that right now I’m teaching an online course called “Managing
Diversity in Organization.” I forwarded it to some of my more
appreciative and open-minded colleagues including our Dean and President, both
whom are rather conservative. I also shared it with my students and asked them for
a summary and opinion.
Thank you.
ehsan
Virginia Wesleyan College, Norfolk, VA.