On March 9th, 55 students arrived at President Ian Baucom’s house in style, sporting blazers, collared shirts, khakis and even ties. The students did not fail to follow the strict business-casual dress code, which explicitly stated: “Dress code is business casual — no jeans and DEFINITELY [emphasis not added] no sweatpants.” The event was the third installment of the joint meeting series of the Middlebury College Republicans (MCR) and Middlebury College Democrats (MCD). The Editorial Board commends this meeting as a step in the right direction for a campus that is politically polarised, reflecting the mood across the country. But we also wondered about the future place of these meetings, and considered how to bring this dialogue into more authentic settings.
The intended objective of the meeting was to facilitate uninhibited and constructive political dialogue between those with conflicting perspectives. It provided an organized forum for open debate among peers.
The joint meeting was guided by a number of questions, some relating to campus and others tackling deeper, more contentious topics. Students were asked questions like, “How do we make Middlebury synonymous with academic freedom?” and “Is the American Dream still alive?” Although some topics resulted in more heated debate, the conversation remained relatively civil. These are thought-provoking and relevant questions, but the Editorial Board wondered whether they brought any real results or led to anything of substance. Some members of our board, who attended this meeting, argued that it was a gathering of already moderate people who engage in political discussion across party lines in their daily lives.
The greater challenge the College faces is getting those on the fringes of the political spectrum to listen to and talk with each other. Ironically, those who self-select into these meetings might not be the people who could benefit most from them.
The Editorial Board noted another problem inherent to these types of organized meetings. Constant advertisement and praise create a paradox that can become self-defeating. Excessive promotion of conversations like that between the MCR and MCD undermines the ability of open conversations to extend beyond contrived settings. Conversing with people with different perspectives should be the expectation, not a rare occurrence requiring over-publicization. PR, to some extent, is acceptable, but Middlebury should focus more attention on normalizing open dialogue among the entire student body. It does not have to be narrowed down to a select group of students.
However, the Board unanimously agreed that these meetings are generally constructive. Discussion is a worthy end in itself and need not produce anything tangible to have an impact. Creating outlets for expression does not require justification. These meetings are a step in the right direction, especially on a campus that struggles with its national image regarding free speech and the perception of silencing certain voices.
Middlebury College is a liberal institution with the majority of students leaning left on the political spectrum. This can create an environment where conservatives feel siloed off from their peers and unable to express their opinions for fear of backlash. These meetings can help send a message that free speech can and should exist on our campus.
We hope these meetings signal a shift in campus culture. One where political discussion can happen in dorms, classrooms, and dining halls. Dialogue should be organic and natural and not strictly dependent on these manufactured and catered environments. Middlebury needs to foster a community where everyone feels safe to share their opinions.
However, the Editorial Board notes an important distinction between political discussion and an attack on personal rights. No one’s safety or identity should be questioned under the guise of free speech. Certain things do not constitute political conversation, and there is a balance between stating one’s political perspective and maliciously tearing down another person. We appreciated that the questions discussed at the joint meeting did not open arguments about people’s rights to exist.
The Board did not agree as to whether these meetings normalize harmful ideas. We did agree that at a left-leaning school, conservative students do face some social backlash. However, we did not agree on whether this backlash indicates a supposed lack of free speech. One member of the Editorial Board mentioned that asking Middlebury not to platform anti-trans activists is not suppressing freedom of speech, but facing the reality of a college where two students have died by suicide in 3 years.
At their core, conversations are better than not having any, even if they do not produce agreement. Speaking with people face-to-face forges a human connection that can elicit empathy, and this mutual understanding should not be overlooked. College is the time to explore and grapple with new and unfamiliar ideas, using a diverse range of perspectives for leverage. Rather than simply reinforcing our own beliefs through interactions with like-minded individuals, we should extend outside of our comfort zone and reach out to the other side of the political aisle. This holds true beyond Middlebury, especially in the current political climate, where bipartisan efforts have become a relic of the past. There needs to be a broader reflection on how we view and talk to each other.
To encourage campus-wide intellectual debate at the joint meetings, these conversations need to happen outside President Baucom’s house. They need to take a physical foothold in our day-to-day interactions, whether this happens in the classroom or in simple conversations in the dining hall.
On The Campus’ part, we don't intend to report on these meetings again – we hope to see them become a more normal part of the Middlebury experience.
