As reported on the front page of last week’s Campus, the administration is changing its policy regarding guest speakers in the wake of the Charles Murray incident. Under the new policy, events or speakers may be cancelled if the event is “likely to be the target of threats or violence.” Policies that stifle discussion and the diversity of thought on campus should always be scrutinized, but this one is particularly outrageous because that it incentivizes violence.
The new policy empowers those who are willing to threaten violence to censor discourse on campus and deny those who wish to address our community their right to speak upon invitation. this new rule creates a troubling incentive for students to threaten violence in order to cancel speaking events that represent ideas opposed to their own. It encourages those who are willing to use violence, or even the threat of violence, as a political weapon to censor thought — an idea that should sicken any curious liberal arts student.
As a principled community, we cannot let what I believe to be an insurgent faction take control of campus discussion, allowing those who are most extreme to dictate what can and cannot be said on campus. Uncomfortable topics still require discussion, because discomfort creates opportunities for growth.
This policy will also perpetuate liberal bias at Middlebury, deterring conservative lecturers from attempting to speak on campus, for fear the administration may cancel their visit. If I was a speaker, even on an apolitical or non-controversial issue, I would have reservations about speaking at an institution of higher learning so unwilling to listen to ideas beyond its coastal bubble of wealthy liberal thought.
This policy would have allowed for a group of students to protested Edward Snowden’s invitation to speak last year on the grounds that he is a fugitive from justice in the United States and potentially faces federal charges under the Espionage Act. Banning Edward Snowden would have been a mistake, and prevented his thought provoking address last year, which allowed for an important discussion around campus on the ideas of tyranny, personal liberty, and the intrusion of the intelligence community into civilian’s personal information.
Colleges around the country are rescinding invitations at an increasing rate. Middlebury should not be at the forefront of the movement to censor discussion on campus and eliminate controversial thoughts. Instead, the college should focus on how it can better protect, accommodate and appeal to speakers whose ideas challenge our own to provide for a more robust discussion of ideas on campus.
