<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>