<p>
Your response is completely disingenuous. The students lobbied and they misrepresented his record. Nowhere in my post does it say that Swarthmore withdrew the invitation. And the individual in question (Zoellick), a Swarthmore alumnus by the way, does have a name. He is not simply “the conservative speaker.” </p>
<p>Coase - I am very sympathetic to alums and students who are caught up in the controversies. It is unfortunate the way a few events can overwhelm the large majority of what goes on somewhere. Maybe things are worse now because of the pervasive and instant media.</p>
<p>Swarthmore’s a great place, a great learning environment, with an unbelievable history. My son almost went there but then chose to go somewhere else because he realized he wanted a larger, more urban environment. This is no knock on Swarthmore: kids make these types of decisions (large vs. small; urban vs. rural) all the time. Believe me, it had nothing to do with the academics.</p>
<p>Let me tell a story which might be more indicative of most Swarthmore students. My son and I went around like most parents and students the year before college decision. We visited a number of places, top places, like Duke, Princeton, Penn, Vanderbilt, etc. The most impressed I was with a student speaker / presenter was the student who spoke to us at Swarthmore. After hearing her speak, and after touring and learning about the academic programs and opportunities at Swarthmore, I was sold on the place. If my son had chosen to go there, I would have been very happy. </p>
<p>To the professors and administrators of Swarthmore and other top colleges and universities: you’ve got to find a way to allow all points of view, and to make students comfortable with it. </p>
<p>I was the one who used the word canceling, but it was in the form of an expression: “Effectively intimidating and canceling a conservative speaker…” </p>
<p>I meant it as what “effectively” happened, not a play-by-play.</p>
<p>The admin stood by and instead of supporting the invited speaker throughout the process let it play out to when he withdrew. </p>
<p>The admin not coming out and supporting an invited speaker by telling the students to cool it and be respectful is the same as caving to the students. And Zoellick is an alum, no less. How rude to their own people, just because he has a different point-of-view than they.</p>
<p>The admin knew exactly what would happen - what person would go into a situation like that on commencement day when the admin shows no willingness to control its own student body? No one!</p>
<p>Zoellick was not “worried about his safety”. He felt he did not want to “be the story” at an important life event for current students. But I’m bowing out. This is getting to be a shouting match on its own. </p>
<p>^^ I know the reason he gave, which is the polite thing to say. But, he could not be guaranteed that pies or other nonsense would not be thrown still him - he has seen what happened to others. </p>
<p>It is interesting that the school that calls itself the most intellectual cannot handle differing opinions and then hides behind nuances of context to justify behavior. The really smart people I know are not afraid to engage at any level. Thanks for at least giving it a go though. Please get the situation fixed, so Swarthmore gets back to a place where ideas thrive, not die before even being debated.</p>
<p>@awcntdb thank you for pointing me to the video - it was a very worthy watch and I greatly appreciated Robbie George’s perspective. Interestingly, it is a perspective that had its genesis at Swarthmore, is reflective of Swarthmore’s heritage and, I pray, reflective of its future. I was also delighted that Swarthmore provided the forum for the debate, so all is not lost. </p>
<p>Unfortunately what the video also made clear is the extent to Political Correctness has succeeded as a form of brainwashing on elite college campuses (and in mainstream America). Swarthmore students speaking at the debate demonstrated their gullibility in absorbing the mainstream group think without critical thought, ostracising those who didn’t conform, and presenting their ill-formed views with arrogance and close-mindedness. The representative students’ communication style and content suggest that the Swarthmore faculty has not been effective in mentoring and guiding students to authentic open dialogue and analysis. It would have been more comforting for me as an alum to observe students who approach such dialogue by critically thinking through pre-suppositions (looking at all sides of an issue before coming to a conclusion) without fear of being marginalised or mocked (wasn’t this a guiding principle behind the creation of tenure?). </p>
<p>With an intellectually diverse body Swarthmore’s students are very unlikely to ever create consensus around how to resolve all of the issues facing them in today’s world. But, with with appropriate faculty mentoring and guidance, they should be able to gain a consensus around the right of all points of view to be respected, listened to, and carefully analysed and assessed (with an open mind) as part of a process that searches for “profound truth.” </p>
<p>Swarthmore is extraordinarily well positioned to again be THE college where the most intellectually curious and capable students across the political, social and religious spectrum congregate to participate in the most exciting and intellectually invigorating of all liberal arts environments. </p>
<p>If, as @donnaleighg suggests, the Administration and Faculty are taking the steps necessary to return Swarthmore to its roots, I am delighted and hope to see the fruit of those efforts in a transformed campus environment and an increase in the number of applicants in coming years. If not, I beg the administration and faculty to grasp the nettle and provide the leadership a college the stature of Swarthmore deserves, and create an environment which produces the the clarity of analysis and thought needed in a society now trained to think via sound-bites. </p>
<p>@am61517 - You are welcome. My wife found it and sent it to our kids, so I cannot it take credit to knowing it existed prior to that. I</p>
<p>I do think Swarthmore can return to a place where ideas flourish without these shout down issues and “you should not be allowed to speak” tactics. </p>
<p>It is surprising, however, how present-day left-wing students and adults seem afraid to even to debate an idea; almost as if they know the substance of their arguments would not hold up under real scrutiny. A college cannot survive as an intellectual powerhouse with such behavior and many do not want to be in such an environment either. </p>
<p>I really liked the place; it added much to knowledge for 150 years, just not as much anymore, at least not in an equitable way. And that huge drop in applications are families and students voting with their feet. </p>
<p>Good luck on getting the ole Swartmore back!</p>
<p>I think there is quite a leap between the statement that Swarthmore (like most other elite colleges and universities) faces a challenge in preserving the comfort of people with a wide spectrum of beliefs and opinions, and the statement that it is not adding to knowledge. I know a variety of outstanding recent grads from Swarthmore whose opinions cover a very wide range of the political spectrum, and whose contributions range from US military service, to the Episcopalian priesthood, to jobs at McKinsey, in the Obama administration, as teachers, as artists… despite, in the face of, and maybe even because of controversies and tensions on campus, outstanding human beings and scholars continue to come out of Swarthmore, and I don’t think overblown statements about the scope and nature of the current controversies (which you do well do point out, but would also do well to point out that the issues they reflect are by no means limited to Swarthmore’s campus) are particularly enlightening to the parents or student trying to understand Swarthmore.</p>
<p>@xanadu83 stated, “I think there is quite a leap between the statement that Swarthmore (like most other elite colleges and universities) faces a challenge in preserving the comfort of people with a wide spectrum of beliefs and opinions, and the statement that it is not adding to knowledge.”</p>
<p>Yep, you are right - a definite overstatement on my part. Thanks for the correction.</p>
<p>I appreciate the comments of @awcntdb and @am61517. I may not agree with every point you make, but you are both thoughtful posters. </p>
<p>@xanadu83: I appreciate your assessment as well. There appears to have been a sea change in the past year. For instance, Swarthmore has moved decisively to address the mishandling of sexual assault cases. As for the tenor of debate, the campus seems more tolerant now. One obvious bit of evidence is that the comments section of the daily Swarthmore is no longer replete with vituperation. </p>
<p>The reaction to the Zoellick withdrawal on campus (as opposed to the reaction on CC) was actually reassuring.
See <a href=“http://www.swarthmorephoenix.com/2013/04/11/zoellick-controversy-raises-questions-of-tolerance/”>http://www.swarthmorephoenix.com/2013/04/11/zoellick-controversy-raises-questions-of-tolerance/</a> </p>
<p>At the same time, the administration’s reaction to the takeover of the board meeting—both at the time and in the subsequent days—was feckless. I often wonder how it would have differed if Christina Paxson, Class of 1982, had been selected as president instead. (Methinks she would not have sat on her hands.) But that ship has sailed. </p>
<p>@coase - Good to hear that the things have calmed down and the pendulum is heading back towards some semblance of civil debate. And I do remember seeing statements by seniors who did not like what happened. </p>
<p>A senior even told my son it was really not representative of the campus as a whole, but it was tough of my son to accept given the fact the person was also a liberal. To my son, it was like the fox telling him he (the fox) is a nice guy and does not eat chickens, while my son sees chickens being eaten by the fox’s friends.</p>
<p>As I said before, good luck on getting Swarthmore back to Quaker roots.</p>
<p>While there may or may not have been a change, I don’t think that outstanding people with a wide variety of beliefs and interests ever stopped graduating from Swarthmore. I think honestly that the administration has a limited ability to contain the conversation and learning process on campus, and while this conversation can go on with more or less civility, and yes while outside speakers can be scared away, it will go on nevertheless. For better or for worse, people with wildly different opinions are very likely to be friends and confront the issues which could divide them, while at other universities friend groups are more homogeneous ideologically. I hope that Swarthmore students can learn to treat formal discussions with the same tolerance and open mindedness that they do, and always have treated their friends. </p>
<p>@xanadu83 wrote, “I hope that Swarthmore students can learn to treat formal discussions with the same tolerance and open mindedness that they do, and always have treated their friends.”</p>
<p>Beautifully stated.</p>
<p>My D started this year at Swat. She is a conservative. Her roommates are also. I was hesitant
on sending her to Swat, but it had such a good reputation for academics. But from a “hey I’m a con, and these are my views” perspective, D and roommates keep quite. Libs there are not very accepting of other ideas.
Cant say I’m too hopeful on changes at Swat. it comes from the top, and if they don’t really stand up
and show tolerance for other ideas, nothing will change. Academics are hard enough at Swat, D doesn’t needed
added pressure of spitting into the prevailing wind.</p>
<p>I don’t know beautiful, but everything I learned about disagreeing with others with respect I learned at Swat! </p>
<p>Swarthmore clearly is among a handful of elite US institutions in producing the most capable and well prepared college graduates, and is, arguably, the best at embedding a deep seeded sense of responsibility for making world a better place. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, also reflected in this thread and others is that Swarthmore’s leadership has not fully embraced the importance of taking a strong stand against the political correctness movement which, if you stop and think about it, is manifesting intellectual fascism on the campuses of elite institutions across America. </p>
<p>Given its strong Quaker heritage and historic role in moulding intellectual thought leaders in the academic, political and business spheres, Swarthmore should be the leader in actively pushing back against any suppression of ideas whether they come from the liberal or conservative viewpoint. Our society needs to escape the polarisation that currently exists with two silo’s competing through sound bites and return to deep and open intellectual discourse as the path to understanding “truth,” breaking gridlock, and making progress in an increasingly complex world. Rebecca, have the courage to stand strongly against intellectual fascism so our graduates help heal rather than divide. </p>
<p>Speaking out as a Swarthmore student, while I can definitely see why some conservative students would feel unwelcome or afraid to voice their opinions given the recent events on campus, I just want to say that the majority are reasonable, moderate students like me who are eager and willing to listen and engage in discussion with all voices! In fact, my group of friends runs the gamut from the leader of Swat Conservatives and religious conservatives to hyper-liberal environmental activists, and we all get along!</p>