Dartmouth alumnus Curmie—Can’t you just picture him leading that horse into the Dean’s office?—shared this letter he received as a member of the “Dartmouth community” from the school’s first female president, Dr. Sian Leah Beilock. It stands in stark contrast to the nauseating Columbia letter dissected here, and Emerson College’s president’s equally revolting letter I posted on here.
Yes, it’s more diplomatic than my letter would be, but that’s why I’m not a college president. And yes, Beilock’s use of the breathless “amazing”—apparently now taking over from “awesome”—is a bit disturbing coming from an adult in high places, but never mind. She has rescued some of the tarnished honor of the university presidents’ club.
Ethics Alarms 
I like that bit about bravery in standing up for what you believe, followed by actions have consequences. If you’re not willing to suffer for your cause, then its not much of a belief in the first place. If that’s the case, why are you doing it at all?
Yes. That’s the heart of the letter, and what so many have missed.
“Islamophobia reigns?” Up yours, Sweetie.
That moral/ethical equivalence jumped out at me, too.
jvb
Drives me NUTS, John.
Well, if a group of Muslims is chanting for your death, it is YOUR fault for being afraid.
And speaking of Larry Kroger, Bluto, Carmine, et al., the best line from the formal reminiscence authored by a classmate and read at our fiftieth college reunion chapel last June (Hamilton College class of 1973): “We thought ‘Animal House’ was a documentary.”
The daughter of a friend of mine was at Dartmouth for a semester just a few months ago. Looks like she chose the right college.
I’m sorry but this jargon-rich letter (“lived experience”)is not perceptively any better in its evasiveness and equivocation than the lilly-livered apologias we’ve already seen.
I can’t disagree with your position. While it condemned the takeover of buildings and university facilities, it did talk about healing and repairing wounds, honoring deeply held beliefs, and the moral equivocation on antisemitism and anti-islamic rhetoric makes my eyes bleed.
These Ivy League chancellors and presidents might just want to take a look at UT-Austin’s response. They could learn a thing or two about unrest control. UT said, “you can protest in designated areas and demand whatever you want as allowed by state, federal and Constitutional law. Do not, under any circumstances, threaten anyone, Jewish or non-Jewish on our campus, and do not, under any circumstances, prevent other students not interested in your campaign from doing what they want to do. You will not take over buildings or common areas and you will not put up encampments. You do that and we will take them down, remove you and your tents from campus – by force if necessary, have you prosecuted to the fullest extent under the law, and if you are registered students you will be suspended or expelled from the school, depending on the gravity of your actions. No discussions. We will not cancel graduation or commencement ceremonies. We will not bring you food, water, or other amenities. If you are hungry, go eat on your own dime. If you are thirsty, go get a drink. Do not break stuff or commit any kind of disruption to our facilities. Oh, and Travis County DA? You are overwhelmed by all of these cases? Too bad. Do your job. Hire more people if you must but DO YOUR JOB! That is all.”
jvb
No, what UT-Austin did was to totally capitulate to Greg Abbott’s completely unconstitutional suppression of protected speech, according to both the 1st amendment and Texas law. The fact that you don’t like what the protesters were saying doesn’t change any of that.
And, by the way, when folks like Eugene Volokh and Will Creeley say that simply chanting “from the river to the sea…” is protected speech, I believe them. The fact that a completely innocent slogan has been co-opted by the likes of Hamas changes nothing.
Prohibitions against encampments or sound amplification are reasonable. Shutting down protests is not at a public university, even if the protesters are objectively wrong.
The state can’t forbid speech based on content, but a college/university certainly can, and indeed has an obligation to when the content genuinely interferes with the educational purpose of the institution and is aimed at making a group of students feel threatened, unwelcome, harassed, etc. I would analogize chanting that “completely innocent” ditty “From the river to the sea” to a mob of white students singing catchy tunes like “Dixie,” Old Black Joe,” and “Massa’s in De cold, Cold, Ground” on the campus of the University of Virginia
I would analogize c
Private colleges can set their own rules. As Alex Morey said in the FIRE webinar the other day, you don’t go to BYU thinking you can do things there that would be permissible at other schools. Still, if there’s a mission statement that aligns with the 1st amendment, the exceptions need to be spelled out, as trying to enforce rules that don’t exist is problematic at best.
“We support free speech, but we think the whole ‘severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive’ is a bit too libertarian for our taste” is reasonable. (I suspect they’d word it a little differently.)
Public universities are bound by the 1st amendment, however. The actions by the UT president might have been legitimate elsewhere, but not on his campus.
Your analogies strike me as repulsive but constitutionally protected speech, absent “true threats and intimidation,” a subjective criterion to say the least. If Columbia or Harvard or Northwestern curtailed that speech, they might have grounds for doing so. UT or UCLA could not, at least on the grounds of their content. Violating time, place, and manner restrictions could still lead to suppression or even arrest.
Tinker still applies, though. As in the public schools line of opinion: speech that threatens, disrupts, and interferes with education can still be prohibited on state university campuses. Justice Powell, in a SCOTUS decision dealing with anti-War demonstrations and banned liberal groups, said colleges could prohibit students’ other wise protected activities that would “infringe reasonable campus rules, interrupt classes, or substantially interfere with the opportunity of other students to obtain an education.” Schools can also could impose reasonable time, place,and manner restrictions on student speech and require that groups seeking official recognition agree in advance to conform to “reasonable campus law.” In other words, a state school does not have to allow a student KKK group to rally in the middle of campus. And that applies to pro-Hamas, aka, “Kill the Jews,” rallies now. If Eugene is saying otherwise, I don’t understate what’s gotten into him.
Well, it looks like they are now going to capitulate to the protesters because the Austin DA told them to. Hmmm…someone who gets funding from Soros tells them to do what the people (probably getting funding from Soros) want. No conflict of interest there.
I should point out that the stakes are higher at UT-Austin. In Texas, students are allowed to conceal carry firearms if they have a permit. These protesters who are antagonizing and assaulting people are setting up lethal-force scenarios. If three or 4 people start pushing you around, that is lethal force and self-defense can often be justified.
It announces that the conduct engaged in will not be tolerated, that the school won’t be extorted into policy changes, and that there will be punishment. The Islamophobia junk is irrelevant to the issue at hand, and thus qualifies as dicta—so she’s tossing comforting words at these assholes while she’s knocking them down.The perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good in these scenarios.
That was my feeling, Jack. Islamophobia often occurs when topics of the Middle East come up, even if it is not directly relevant here and even if it does not pop up as often as some will claim. Acknowledging that it can be part of the dynamic does little harm and may actually do some good.
-Jut
I will agree if Islam has to abide by the same rules as Christianity. If the criticism of Christianity is something similar to an ‘Islamophobic’ comment, the same penalty applies. No more calling Christians imperialists, racists, bigoted, ignorant, superstitious, violent, homophobic, sexist, misogynistic, colonialist, or right wing or you get the same punishment as for Islamophobia. Oh, and you get to acknowledge ‘Christophobia’ in any criticism of the US, Western Civilization, white people, etc.
Pingback: Homepage