Open your ears

Author: JAMES ROGERS '04

First, we had one of the most sought-after public speakers alive, former mayor of the most populous city in the country and potential presidential candidate with definite cross-party appeal. Now we have an accomplished woman, former cabinet-level official and current director of an organization that has the primary goal of protecting children around the world. What flunky are we going to pick next, Chomsky (cue applause)? The current president (cue boos)?

It doesn't matter whether it is for commencement or not - Ari Fleischer seemed to get much the same treatment here as Rudi Giuliani - the problem is the same in both cases and it is the biggest problem in American politics today: nobody listens. Nobody on either side of any contentious issue listens to the other because both sides already believe they know what is "right." Conservatives and liberals - in whose number I count myself - are guilty to equal degrees. At Middlebury, there is more of the latter than the former and, as a result, knee-jerk liberalism here is rampant and self-reinforcing. In spite of all our claims of tolerance and free thought, the environment here is incredibly stifling for divergent political and social viewpoints.

We don't have to look far to see how this plays out on campus. There is outrage any time a speaker comes along and it does not seem like that person is going to be telling the audience what it wants to hear. Then again, what is it that the audience wants to hear in the first place? Two opinions pieces in last week's Campus attack the selection of Ann Veneman because she does not reflect the values of Middlebury College. What, precisely, are these values? Are they pro-choice, pro-environment, in favor of small businesses and small farms and against large corporations and GMOs, as I am told? Or do they stem from the massive tuition dollars coming from parents' jobs at big corporations? Perhaps from the secret endowment investment portfolio? Maybe from the grads heading to big city firms after getting degrees? Or the fact that the vast majority of the food we eat in our dorm rooms and dining halls is from large-scale, non-organic, GMO-filled sources? Like everyone else, we take a stand on "our values" (whatever those are) only when it is most convenient.

These facts and my own sentiments, along with those of a number of other students, seriously conflict with the values that I am told by the faculty and students writing in last week's Campus are the core of this College. Last time I checked, I was still paying tuition and going to class. I am a part of this institution as well. Let's have an agreement; you don't speak for me, I won't speak for you and we'll both listen to each other.

Of course, I recognize that Middlebury, on the whole, is at the left of much of the country. But denying the legitimacy of viewpoints coming from much of our own country does no service to any worthwhile cause. It is already a prevailing opinion that academics and students alike at institutions like Middlebury are out of touch with the nation; let us not give any more credence to this opinion by insulating ourselves even more. I have little interest in hearing a speech that is simply going to reinforce my own opinions or, as in the case of many high profile speakers, mail in the effort by giving a canned speech that thousands have already heard.

As for the argument that somehow Veneman is not prestigious enough for Middlebury, I can only reiterate the extent of her achievements and remind everyone that our reputation exists only among a small number of people in a small geographic area. If we are supposed to have a speaker commensurate with our status, I think we may have overstepped our bounds already. I am more interested in hearing a memorable and thought-provoking speech than I am in having the most recognizable name we can get by writing a bigger check.

I admit that I was slightly disappointed with Veneman's selection, but I believe that the exaggerated reaction that many students and faculty have had to this issue is driven by an inflated sense of self-importance and an utter lack of desire to hear out and seriously consider positions that may be contrary to their own. This problem of intellectual openness has become widespread; it is far more ubiquitous than any core values this College supposedly represents.