Student Protestors Take Over Open Board Meeting

<p>article is excellent, makes the beneficiaries of a Swarthmore education look good (via her writing) while making the institution look terrible. I am a Williams grad and a committed liberal. But what is happening at Swarthmore is a joke, and I’d be embarrassed (albeit unfortunately not shocked, even though Williams is generally far more moderate / balanced than Swarthmore) if it happened at my alma mater. I remember as a prospective being turned off by both Wesleyan and Oberlin for similar reasons of overwhelming political correctness on campus, and while not something I typically encountered at Williams, it certainly did exist, and I feel like it has grown over time since I graduated in certain unhealthy institutionalized practices. I think the infamous Bowdoin report was generally unfair and overblown, and that the level of political indoctrination at liberal arts schools is not nearly what conservative critics make it out to be. On the other hand, when things like this happen, it tends to give a lot of credence to those critiques, particularly in areas related to tolerance of dissenting views on topics related to race, sexuality, gender, military policy, or environmental activism. </p>

<p>Making all sexual assault proceedings public is an atrocious idea for many reasons, both for the privacy of victims and for the protection of the falsely accused. It would turn into an absolute circus. This is not an easy situation to deal with, as inevitably if too much weight is placed on an accuser’s statements, some innocent accused will be branded as rapists, but if filing a complaint is too onerous / the standard of proof is too high, some guilty of rape will go unpunished. Still, at a liberal institution, I would think that the rights of the accused in what are essentially quasi-criminal proceedings would at least be taken seriously, rather than institutionalizing practices (as some seem to want to do) pursuant to which anyone accused of sexual assault is presumed guilty. There is way to maintain the presumption of innocence while still managing to treat victims with dignity and respect throughout the entire process. Swarthmore, among other places, unsurprisingly seems to be struggling to find that balance. </p>

<p>I disagree with the National Review piece’s contention that making environmental sustainability an institutional priority is a political agenda … that’s like saying, turning students into educated, compassionate citizens with a commitment to public service is an improper “political” agenda. But the rest of the piece, sadly, rings true. </p>

<p>In particular, the focus on ethnic / sexuality studies has spun a bit out of control. Back when folks were initially protesting for these topics to be incorporated into then lilly-white curricula, they were in the right. But that was decades ago, and if there is ONE thing students at Swarthmore (or Williams, Amherst, etc.) need not fear now, it is lack of sufficient exposure to gender / ethnic / sexuality studies on campus. To protest in favor of augmenting the already disproportionate offerings in and emphasis on this area is just to play into a conservative narrative of an overwhelming focus on these topics to the detriment of other curricular priorities. For a good perspective on this, I recommend reading KC Johnson’s blog focused on the false rape accusations at Duke, in which he basically eviscerates many of the identity-studies classes/professors at Duke, most of whom were not exactly a credit to the institution during and after that fiasco. </p>

<p>Most troubling is the silencing of speakers who don’t share viewpoints with the majority of campus. Freedom of speech should be THE paramount value on any college campus, even if (perhaps particularly if) that speech at times makes some people feel uncomfortable (short of, of course, outright harassment, threats, and things of that nature). An administrator who does not speak out forcefully against what happened at the Board meeting has no business running a college, and should simply be axed. In my view, what is described by the student in the WSJ is a fireable offense. When I was at Williams, we had a lot of controversial speakers, on both left and right, that in some cases I was very unhappy with – on the right, Charles Murray and Denesh D’souza, on the left, a few speakers from the Nation of Islam (being Jewish I found those particularly problematic). All had views that went beyond provocative and were in some cases arguably or outright racist. Yet, in the end, I was better off for having heard them, and hearing students engage them … you can’t just (no pun intended) closet yourself from any view you find offensive for some reason or another. </p>

<p>Because, the real world certainly doesn’t work that way, and doing so will only delay your ability to engage in intelligent dialogue with opposing viewpoints. A skill that is rapidly being lost anyway as folks from both sides of the spectrum are increasingly exposed only to echo chambers that parrot their own thoughts (Fox News, conservative talk radio, many religious institutions on the right, MSNBC and many institutions of higher education on the left). It’s no wonder that our politicians (and I actually find this problem worse on the right, but places like Swarthmore are doing all they can to even the stakes) are so disinterested in actual dialogue when all they care about is delivering red meat to increasingly polarized bases with no interest in actually hearing an opposing viewpoint. Swarthmore, sadly, seems to be part of the problem, rather than the solution, right now.</p>

<p>There seems to be some confusion surrounding the request to change the confidentiality policy of the College Judiciary Committee for cases of sexual assault. Here’s the clarification and please let me know if you have any questions!</p>

<p>As it stands now, CJC cases at Swarthmore are strictly confidential and all parties must sign a non-disclosure agreement. That means that a victim of sexual assault who goes through the CJC is only allowed to tell her immediate family and confidential therapists about the outcome of the case, even if her rapist is found responsible. This is in direct violation of federal law, the Clery Act to be specific. The Clery Act overrides FERPA in this area. The US Department of Education says that the Clery Act requires access to the outcomes of the sanctions without condition. Additionally, the Clery Act permits institutions of higher education to release the final results, which includes the name of the accused, of disciplinary actions against students found to have violated school rules in connection with a crime of violence.</p>

<p>Here’s some more information on this ruling if you’re interested:
A statement of the law – [Policy</a> Accomplishments | Clery Center For Security On Campus](<a href=“http://clerycenter.org/policy-accomplishments]Policy”>http://clerycenter.org/policy-accomplishments)
The Georgetown case that sparked the revision – [How</a> one student changed Georgetown’s sexual assault policy - The Georgetown Voice](<a href=“http://georgetownvoice.com/2004/09/16/how-one-student-changed-georgetowns-sexual-assault-policy/]How”>How one student changed Georgetown's sexual assault policy - The Georgetown Voice)
Otterbein University’s policy change from two days ago – [Following</a> criticism, Otterbein changes sexual assault policy | Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/05/14/following-criticism-otterbein-changes-sexual-assault-policy]Following”>Following criticism, Otterbein changes sexual assault policy)</p>

<p>So basically Swarthmore is in violation of this law right now and that’s what we believe needs to be changed. Basically the non-disclosure requirement is the only thing we are protesting at this point. We are not arguing that, for example, the name of the victim be published on the CJC board or anything of that nature.</p>

<p>Hopebrinn. What you propose sounds entirely reasonable.</p>

<p>The defining characteristic of Swarthmore students is their passion—for art, for physics, for poetry, for Mountain Justice. In deciding whether to give Swarthmore a look, prospective students need to ask whether they have a consuming passion they want nurtured in college. If so, Swarthmore offers an unparalleled opportunity to pursue that passion. Speaking as a Swat mom (daughter class of ’12) and a professor at another university, I know that, above all, a college education offers students an opportunity to spend four years in a community of scholar-learners that will challenge them to reach deep within themselves to develop a potential they only glimpse as high school seniors. I don’t think a prospective student can do better than Swarthmore in this regard. Swarthmore’s faculty is extraordinary. In sharing their own passions with students unstintingly and with a level of scholarly and pedagogical expertise that arguably is the best among all liberal arts colleges, Swarthmore professors change lives. Moreover, students support each other’s learning in an exemplary manner. These defining strengths of Swarthmore risk being lost in the current focus on the difficult issues that passionate Swat students have brought into view this year. Almost invisible in the current fray are key products of Swat passion: the amazing senior art exhibitions, music performances, and honors projects, not to mention the acceptance letters to the top graduate and professional programs in the country. As for Mountain Justice, I confess ambivalence. Looking at the higher education landscape, I am deeply bothered by the lack of passion for politics, the environment, and social justice among college students. Increasingly few students at any university can be persuaded to lift their eyes from their smart phone screens to care about the world around them. The students who disrupted the board meeting reassure me that all is not lost. But I still find myself asking, does exercising their passion, which I applaud, entail actions that flirt with uncivil disobedience? I wish that conversations about this question could have stayed on the Swarthmore campus. The WSJ (especially the comments section which is itself a portrait of incivility and ad hominem attack) is not the place to address this issue. As for the sexual assault topic, I give President Chopp an A+ for how she is handling this issue. Swarthmore has actually come late to a problem that other universities have already confronted. I attribute that to the relative paucity of date rape on campus. Over the past twenty years, virtually all institutions of higher education have had to reassess their typically clunky reporting and adjudication processes. From seeing how this played out on my own campus, also with lawsuits, I well understand that the good intentions of the staff simply cannot preserve a clunky process from eventually failing and failing badly. Anyone who has had a student report date rape to them, as I and many other college professionals have, knows that such situations are extraordinarily complex and require finely-tuned protocols. President Chopp is to be applauded for hiring an outside firm skilled in best practices to advise the campus. All that has been learned on other campuses over the past twenty years, which this firm has tracked, will enable Swarthmore to develop protocols that reflect best practices and have the strongest chance of enabling the college to respond appropriately in the future.</p>

<p>I can’t defend the students who took over the meeting or the administration response. I’m not sure what led to this show down, but all points of view clearly need to be heard and respect needs to be shown by all for differing viewpoints. By drowning out those with whom they disagree, the MJ group has compromised both its integrity and its message. They seem to be taking their lessons from the Republican caucus of the House of Representatives.</p>

<p>It’s sad for me that this happening, because even though my son chose to go somewhere else, I have affectionate memories of Swarthmore. </p>

<p>Here’s what I remember that I liked:</p>

<ol>
<li> Beautiful campus, beautiful campus. Just wonderful.</li>
<li> The young lady in admissions, who was a Swarthmore alum and who gave the group presentation, was the best I heard doing one of these. This includes Penn, Princeton, Duke, et al. She was very, very impressive; she represented Swat students and alumni very well indeed.</li>
<li> Really liked the intellectual feel of the place.</li>
<li> Liked the fact that the first semester is pass / fail.</li>
<li> Like the honors program and how it worked.</li>
<li> Liked how you had to make a proposal when declaring your major. This meant that you had to think through what you were thinking of doing. This reinforced for me (and my son) that this was a serious place for learners. </li>
<li> Liked how friendly it was. I remember my son and I running into a student who was rushing to meet a senior administrator for some reason, yet he insisted on taking time to talk to us and to give us his thoughts on “why Swarthmore”. They were extremely good thoughts, very well expressed.</li>
<li> Liked how you could extend yourself through cross registration at Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Penn.</li>
<li> Son loved the library.</li>
<li> Liked the nickname “Swattie”.</li>
</ol>

<p>So, despite the fact that I lean more towards SwatGrad on what’s been in the news lately, I look forward to better publicity coming out of this exceptional place soon.</p>

<p>I find this rather interesting because for all the claims of intellectual given to Swarthmore students I find nothing intellectual about this group’s approach.</p>

<p>I come from a different angle. Adopting Ephman’s phraseology, I am a “committed” conservative and an Amherst alum, albeit, I think, a couple decades or so older than Ephman. At Amherst, I listened to liberal speakers with whom I totally disagreed, BUT I never did something as juvenile and anti-intellectual as clapping them down and shouting so their ideas could not be heard - neither did any of my conservative colleagues. I simply asked pointed, substantive questions during the question and answer sessions. And full props and respect to my liberals colleagues for they quietly let me (and others) speak, as is the intellectual thing to do. I will state I have heard things have deteriorated at Amherst in this regard as well.</p>

<p>This supposed Swarthmore intellectualism has devolved into the most anti-intellectual of constructs - “I am the only correct one here and because my arguments are so weak I must make sure others do not hear your competing arguments.” The bottomline is I have never met one person with convincing arguments and confidence in what he believes needing to shut down the opposite point-of-view via sixth grade bully tactics. Dumb and weak are the terms that comes to mind, not intellectual.</p>

<p>History provides quite pertinent lessons here. In the past, it was the intellectuals who shut down discourse when scientists created new theories that challenged the establishment. Funny, that still happens today. Thought experiment - what do you think liberals would do if someone definitely shows that global warming does not exist? I can tell you - no matter how empirically supported and documented, liberals would do what these supposed intellectuals at Swarthmore are doing; shout them down, regardless of the strength of the data. WW2 was also an intellectuals’ debacle. It was the intellectuals of England who refused to accept Germany’s goals and appeased Hitler, nearly to Western civilization’s demise. I could go on and on with such examples.</p>

<p>Swarthmore really should change its claim to fame from intellectuals to bullies, which is much more befitting at this point.</p>

<p>Falcon Flyer – I agree with your initial points, but it’s just too easy to say that “Swarthmore really should change its claim to fame from intellectuals to bullies, which is much more befitting at this point.” Let’s just say I know Swarthmore better than you could ever and it is far from anti-intellectual or a haven for bullies. Just like you wouldn’t want outsiders judging Amherst by it lowest common denominator, it’s similarly unfair to tar the entire institution because of the actions of a vocal, tactically-misguided minority.</p>

<p>SwatGrad,
Thanks for saying far more eloquently than I ever could what has been going through my mind since reading the comments of Ephman and falconflyer. I, too, know Swat far better than those posters ever could, having one offspring who is a Swat grad and another who is currently in residence at Swat. While what is currently occurring on campus with MJ may be uncomfortable for some, and I certainly don’t support their somewhat boorish behavior at the BoM meeting, it involved the actions of a small portion of the student body. Methinks that the alums of Amherst and Williams are living in glass houses based on some of the recent occurrences on their campuses, and they shouldn’t be throwing stones.</p>

<p>@SwatGrad - I should have better prefaced my last paragraph.</p>

<p>I saw the video of the meeting, and, most importantly, I saw admin’s reaction. The fact that admin did not condemn the behavior, acted like it was powerless to stop it (which it is not), and did nothing to ensure the conservative students could speak (which it could have done), then I conclude that the behavior was condoned. Do you think given admin’s passivity to the behavior, which can easily be construed as acceptance, means Swarthmore can expect more or less of this behavior? The answer is obvious.</p>

<p>Granted, you are correct that Swarthmore should not be judged by its lowest common denominator student, but given admin’s acquiescence as seen in the video, the question is how long before this behavior is the norm? Sure, not all students are like those in the video; however, not all hippies were drug users either, but look at what history recorded and what the overall sentiment of the 60’s is to most people. Neither are all people in the inner city gang members that will hurt you, but who is dumb enough to go find out? Swarthmore’s problem is after not initially and aggressively stamping out that behavior, it will not matter what other students are like, the die would have been cast.</p>

<p>Sometimes, some things are too easy to refute and best left alone, but given these disparate discussions, I think this deserves a comment.</p>

<p>@momsof3sons wrote, “Methinks that the alums of Amherst and Williams are living in glass houses based on some of the recent occurrences on their campuses, and they shouldn’t be throwing stones.”</p>

<p>I hope I was not the only person to shake my head at the above comment. This is the exact type of anti-intellectual approach that ruins high-level discourse. Reading that, I felt like I went to a grey matter dungeon.</p>

<p>Let me get this straight - because there are issues at my alma mater (Amherst), then it negates me from having a critical comment on another school on a totally different issue? Intellectual people, I thought, could have more than one critical thought and discussion on varying issues at the same time. Or, am I asking too much of some people? Seems that way.</p>

<p>To insinuate that a different issue stemming from a different set of circumstances at a different school somehow makes my (or anyone else’s) positions and arguments on something else at another school less salient is not only intellectually vapid, it is a conceptual and philosophical non-sequitur. My colleagues could keep separate issues straight and have vigorous conversations about each; it would be nice if we do the same here. It cannot be that tough to keep different issues straight.</p>

<p>I would happily discuss the issues at Amherst, but last time I checked that was not what the Swarthmore video that I was addressing was about - the video was not about Amherst, Williams, or sexual harassment - it was about divestment re oil companies and student behavior at a meeting. It cannot be too tough to ask that in the comments to each other we do the intellectual thing and keep the subject of the discussion in focus. Thanks.</p>

<p>^Actually, if you read any of the articles or watched the videos, you’d know that the meeting actually was NOT about divestment. It was supposed to be about divestment but students took over the meeting and instead decided to discuss the issues surrounding sexual assault, racism, classism, and homophobia on campus.</p>

<p>^watching the video, it looked like MJ is a divestment group, that wanted to co-op the issues around sexual assault, racism, classism and any other “ism” to help justify their boorish behavior.</p>

<p>falconflyer,
I guess my basic question comes down to why you are seemingly so invested in the Swarthmore discussion forum. Surely, you must be able to get your intellectual juices flowing elsewhere. Yes, yes, it’s an open forum, I get that, but I just don’t get why Amherst and Williams alums are so interested on commenting on what’s going on this semester at Swat. Please, have the last “intellectual” word, as I’m sure you will. I’m done.</p>

<p>one of the problems here is the conflation of so many different issues. To me, the biggest problem by far is sexual assaults and how the administration responds. This is a very complicated issue and one that many colleges, not just Swarthmore, are now belatedly giving more careful thought to. Unfortunately, when what appears to be a radical environmental group storms the castle and shouts everyone else down, what should have been the focus gets lost in their rancor. Then to toss every other potential campus issue under the sun in, the usual list of isms (not to minimize these, although on many college campuses, the emphasis on them is disproportionate relative to other campus issues), just muddles things further. I wasn’t at the meeting of course and so I don’t have a full picture of how things went down, and why. But what I saw of Hope’s testimony was compelling, thoughtful, and seemingly should have been the focus of the meeting and its aftermath. Instead, another group hijacked the attention away via tactics that basically aimed to stifle, not provoke, debate, about an entirely different topic. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what happened, but that is the best I can ascertain. I think people (including the Swarthmore student who wrote a very compelling editorial, so it isn’t like this is Amherst and Williams folks who are raising this issue in the first instance, anything but) were taken aback by that, and unfortunately, it overshadowed some more timely, importantly, and appropriately-articulated concerns that instead SHOULD have been the focus. </p>

<p>I will respond to one other thing falconflyer said (because we are otherwise generally in agreement). While a group of liberals on the Swarthmore campus clearly tried to stifle debate on at least one topic, and I’d even grant that on many college campuses, this is far more of a problem suffered by the right than the left (for one obvious reason – there are simply very few conservative voices represented in academia, in academic settings where the numbers are more balanced, it’s just not in issue), in society at large, outside of academia, the bigger problem – by far – comes from the right, which unfortunately has been taken over more and more by angry zealots who would rather shout over and bully their opponents rather than engage in constructive dialogue – and certainly have ZERO interest in fair examination of scientific evidence on ANY issue. I’m talking about the likes of Chris Christie, Louis Gomert, Peter King, Steve King, Todd Akin, Michelle Bachmann, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Allen West, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, I could go on and on and on, but bullying and shouting down of opponents, and/or disregard for basic scientific evidence and uncritically embracing ignorant positions, while a problem on both sides, is undoubtedly far more favored by, increasingly, what have become the leading national voices of the GOP. And it’s particularly ironic that falconflyer uses global warming as his/her example, because to me, that is example 1A of conservative disinterest in open-minded inquiry. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus about global warming that is ignored / derided by the vast majority of conservatives, simply because it does not fit into their preferred narrative. They simply don’t care what the correct answer is, only seeking evidence which suits preexisting beliefs. Similar to evolution, which incredibly and increasingly is coming under attack in favor of creationism in the most conservative pockets of the country. If these folks thought gravity was contradicted by something in the Bible and/or was harmful to the interests of energy companies, you can bet there would be a movement for a “fair and balanced” presentation of opposing viewpoints to the theory of gravity in public schools. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so scary that a major political party favors promoting ignorance in our educational system. </p>

<p>If you want to attack liberals as close-minded and disinterested in debate, falconflyer, I suggest you stick to college campuses where you do actually have an argument … because once you get outside of the college setting, that narrative completely flips, and those that have no interest in an honest and open-minded airing of views, and in particularly, of views relating to scientific inquiry that may produce results that don’t square with Biblical “truths” or protection of energy companies, are ignored and/or shouted down, consistently, by the right wing. You simply can’t compare, in this regard, the leading voices on the left (the Clintons, Obamas, Maddow, Jon Stewart, and so on) and the types of people that have, sadly, taken over the GOP.</p>

<p>@Hopebrinn - I am aware of what the focus of the meeting was “supposed” to be about, but I responded only to the reality of what it became and what became its focus. The video and the corresponding article in the WSJ does not address the initial intent of the meeting; they addressed what the meeting actually morphed into, whether by force or otherwise. Intent is a pipe dream anyway; results and effects are what matter in the end.</p>

<p>I discussed this with about 25 people from these schools and the Ivys and not one person even mentioned (and half did not know) the original purpose of the meeting. And, I venture to guess the 1M people who read about the issue in the WSJ know zero about why the meeting existed in the first place. That is just the reality of the situation.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Seriously? Lots of people work and provide services in the “inner city.” Are they all clueless morons? I can’t believe you actually ranted about anti-intellectualism after tossing out that thoughtless analogy.</p>

<p>@falconflyer, you’re misunderstanding what I said. You said the meeting was all about divestment. That was NOT what the meeting ended up being about. That was the intent, but not the result. What was talked about was sexual assault, racism, classism, homophobia, and administrative indifference.</p>

<p>@LucieTheLackie - God bless the Mormons and missionaries from any church that do such good deeds. </p>

<p>My point was a more general one, and, as you accurately point out, should have been better stated - no one (at least no one I know) goes and explores the heart of the inner city just for the fun of it because of the basic understood inherent dangers; service providers and churches that provide a service excepted. The good people in the inner city get the shaft based on the louder issues / problems surrounding the not-so-good elements.</p>

<p>Tons of comments here - I have many meetings today, but I will get back to this later. The comments, even those that disagree, are very much appreciated and do deserve a thoughtful response.</p>

<p>I apologize for being slow to respond, but I had to take care of expanding a division.</p>

<p>After having read the comments, I do think that the initial issue here is, as Ephman said, the conflation of issues. But, that is not the fundamental point that has been absorbed into the public arena re the meeting I commented on - the issues of behavior and administration reaction are at the forefront.</p>

<p>Personally, I do my darnedest not to conflate issues, and it is a pet peeve of mine when that is done because it makes no sense / headway in solving issues that are vastly different in scope and in their solutions. The point of my one post was it was the behavior of the students who took over the meeting was the big negative, and I stated why I thought as much. I never addressed the intended substance of the meeting, as that was not my post’s purpose. Nothing happening at my alma mater had anything to do with the specific behavior exhibited by those students and the in-action of the admin - zilch. And to say that I am in “a glass house” on the issue because of something different happening at my alma mater, well, still strikes me as cognitive dissonance because they have nothing to do with each other. An issue on one campus does not somehow negate one’s opinion on a different issue on another campus. Re-read my post, I addressed very specific behavior at a meeting, which has nothing to do with anything at Amherst, which is a different issue, different problem, different solution needed and different reasoning required to get resolved.</p>

<p>I am not too sure how my comments got construed as calling anyone closed-minded. Hopefully, my paragraph above explains my position. If it does not, then we have to agree to disagree about what constitutes being close-minded and not debating. I address below what I view as close-minded.</p>

<p>I surmise, based on all articles I read, that it was liberal students who exhibited the “interesting” behavior. In my opinion, it is way more close-minded for the students who disrupted the meeting to think their issue is more important than the intended issue of the meeting. (@hopebrinn, thanks for the clarification, but your need to clarify proves the point of my very first post on the issue - the behavior and overall tenor of the meeting totally overshadowed the actual intent of the meeting or anything discussed.) </p>

<p>Last time I checked, it looks like liberal students are eating each other alive as to whose agenda is more important, so not much for me to say there for it has never crossed my mind to clap someone down, try to shut them up, or censor what they say - doing such strikes me as the most close-minded of all because it illustrates one has chosen not even to listen to and properly debate the other side(s). </p>

<p>Having discussed this issue with many grads from top schools, I can say no one is discussing the intended issues, it is the shout-down behavior of the students coupled with in-action (and subsequent caving to demands) of the admin being discussed. And, no one is saying to Harvard people that because they had a cheating scandal that they cannot comment because they live in a glass house - see the problem with the glass house argument - it solves nothing and advances nothing. And the three Harvard people I have talked to had some engaging comments, to which I respectfully listened. Ironically, they are liberal and totally disgusted by the students’ behavior and how, as one put it, liberal students today “conflate” tolerance, phobias and acceptance. It seems that today’s liberal student does not realize it is possible to be totally against something for constructive, empirical and / or religious reasons without being intolerant or mean. Acceptance (and non-acceptance) and agreement (and disagreement) are different realms of reasoning that do not automatically have nefarious motives, but these philosophical differences do not seem to exist for many students. It just seems if one says he disagrees with a liberal cause (even with alternative supporting data in tow), then one must be intolerant or phobic, which is often not the case - contrary evidence to the liberal position be damned. Such an approach illogically dismisses the fact that other, equally valid and just as strongly supported opinions / ideas / theories do exist. Swarthmore students even protested one of their alumni, Robert Zoelick, from speaking at graduation. What is more close-minded and intolerant than not even listening? </p>

<p>Here is a column by a top scholar on the issue re the meeting. Agree or disagree with him, as you wish; however, to me, his point is salient and has a connecting historical perspective.</p>

<p>[Wimps</a> Versus Barbarians - Thomas Sowell - Page full](<a href=“http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/05/21/wimps-versus-barbarians-n1601497/page/full]Wimps”>http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/05/21/wimps-versus-barbarians-n1601497/page/full)</p>

<p>Again, thank you all for your patience in my reply.</p>