Still Thinking About Dissent
Building on my previous blog (in a conversation with myself), I want to be brief and clear.  I am proud of the students for getting involved, caring, taking a stand, being willing to push back and follow through.  The analysis I re-posted in my previous blog is not meant to criticize the students.  They are among the most power-poor actors in these conflicts over commencement speakers.  I applaud their courage...their willingness to express dissent, to take a risk to challenge the conventional wisdom bubbles of elites.  And, while I am disappointed in an outcome where dissent is silenced, rather than engaged to demonstrate its error, I do not blame the students for this sub-optimal outcome either.

Leaders (in this case, university administrators) who choose to schedule a highly controversial speaker without consulting the members of their community are sending a message:  they are willing to use their power in pedagogical moments like these, to simply assert the correctness of their own views, even if doing so is likely to harm our collective respect for the vigorous contestation of ideas, democratic deliberation, and community.  When the powerful ignore the power-poor they have failed as leaders, because they have created a conversation where dissenting voices have too few options for productive participation in the dialogue.

While I struggle mightily with understanding why the CEO of a large hospital in my town would invite Laura Ingraham as the keynote speaker to celebrate the institutions anniversary, and I am deeply trouble by what that says about his leadership (and capacity to think clearly), confronted with that situation I would consider 

• getting the leadership to change its mind before a decision is made (which does not seem to have been an option in any of these cases) and instead choose a speaker who will challenge us without dividing us in ways that disempower and confuse us;
• work with the leadership to bring in a second speaker and turn the forum into a meaningful dialogue (and it does not seem like this was an option here, though only the insiders would know);
• organize a counterpoint event and speaker, like a shadow cabinet, to indicate the shameful abuse of power by the institutions leadership and counter bad ideas with better ideas.

I do not pretend to think this would be easy or even that it is achievable or optimal.  I do, however, believe that we need to engage with those who see the world differently, including those who do so simply to be divisive, to demonstrate the wrong-headedness of their ideas...while at the same time demonstrating the importance and value of democracy, enacting the change we want to see in the world.

Imagine if students at Liberty University organized to boo Michelle Obama off the stage.  (Of course, this requires imagining the unimaginable, that LU would invite MO in the first place, but run with me on this one.) 

Would those cheering the students booing Rice and others (who rightfully deserve loud disapproval) feel the same way about LU students or would our initial reaction be that they need to hear MO, their rejection is based on their fear of unfamiliar ideas and the clash of ideas is what a university is all about, etc?  This response is different, because hidden (not so well) beneath this debate about speech are debates about ideas and policies--where there are competing versions of what is 'right' and who is wrong.

Anyway, I wanted to clarify that I remain proud of the students and that my disappointed in the outcomes is a reflection of my disappointment in the leadership of these institutions.

Ran into a great quote from Bruce Lee the other day about embracing the paradoxes in life, which seems to fit here:

"Obey the principles, without being bound by them."

Obeying our principles, of free speech and more, starts with understanding them enough to let them guide us through the complexities of the real world, let them help us become better people who are more engaged with others in support of resilient and flourishing communities, rather than empty platitudes 'accidentally clinging to words that express a truth.'

As JS Mill notes, when we fail to “fully, frequently, and fearless discuss” our principles, in ways that recognize these as “living truths,” even our most important ideals become like ashes in our mouths.  Our recitation of them as if they were self-interpreting platitudes existing beyond debate transforming noble ideas into notions “held as dead dogma…one superstition the more, accidentally clinging to the words which enunciate a truth.”

And yes, I just quoted Bruce Lee and JS Mill together...you got a problem with that?! :)