Editorial

When Jay Saper ’13 clicked “Reply All” to James B. Jermain Professor of Political Economy Peter Matthews’ two-department-wide (Economics and Sociology) email advertising an upcoming speaker, he roused a discussion about the College inviting controversial guest speakers to lecture. That he took issue with the premise and ultimately the substance of a talk entitled, “Early Non-Marital Childbearing and the ‘Culture of Despair,’ ” is ultimately inconsequential when compared to the grander implications of his email: the breadth of a liberal arts education ought to be vast and our community’s debates should be public.

We believe Saper’s criticism of the idea of the economics departments’ sponsorship of Phil Levine’s controversial “Culture of Despair” talk has merit. We also understand, however, that Matthew’s contention that he merely promoted the talk is reasonable and probably reflects his true intentions in sending a two-department wide email. After all, Saper’s initial issue was with the talk’s promotion as a department-sponsored event despite its controversial nature, rather than a talk presented by the economics department. The distinction seems minimal, but it is worthy of debate. In a way, all Middlebury students could take issue with the College endorsing those speakers it invites to lecture. It is not the place of a liberal arts college to endorse speakers, but merely to present them.

To be sure, the issue is much larger than the correspondence between Saper and Matthews. Their exchange brings to the fore many questions worth addressing — namely, who does the College bring to speak, why and how are these decisions made, and what action is taken in the case of controversial speakers?

Certainly we don’t believe that controversial speakers should not be brought to campus at all. On the contrary, we believe the College should, and often does, make an effort to bring in many different speakers with contrasting viewpoints. The duty rests with students, however, to attend those talks most likely to challenge their own perspectives on issues they believe they know well and about which they care deeply. Only after listening to and synthesizing the viewpoints elucidated in a given talk should we begin to question the merits of an argument. In short, a liberal arts student ought to cultivate an open mind.

Students should — as should all people — hear and understand several perspectives on an issue before purporting to have formed a well-considered opinion. Asking probing questions and seeking hard-won answers is an integral part of this process, and we are in the right to demand speakers who will not shirk their duty to address critical questions in the message they bring to us. A speaker coming to lecture at Middlebury would be wise, therefore, to prepare insightful responses to satiate inquisitive minds — something we expect from all Middlebury students. In other words, we hope a speaker will have done his or her homework, too, and be prepared to engage in a critical dialogue with both with those who support their message and those who question it. We all should expect and strive for well-considered dissenting opinions and relish intellectual and spirited debates. To be critical for the sake of being critical, however, is generally less conducive to a thoughtful community. Only doing so for the sake of stimulating well-rounded discussion is helpful.

In bringing controversial speakers to lecture, the College could also promote critical dialogue by providing a counterpoint. This could be achieved by inviting another speaker to campus or by simpler means, such as attaching a literature with alternate perspectives to lecture invitations. Through the MCAB office, students also have the power to bring speakers to campus (go to go/speakers to find out how). From this type of thoughtful, community-cultivated and public back-and-forth, we will all benefit from the atmosphere of critical thinking and questioning, and gain lifelong knowledge in the process.