April 18, 2014
Hamilton’s Office of Admission often describes the College as a tight-knit community of about 2,000 students, faculty, administrators and staff, nestled in the rolling hills of upstate New York. While students may enter Hamilton with different experiences and viewpoints, the Admission office argues that the College brings them into contact with others unlike themselves, resulting in a multi-cultural, empathetic group of individuals.
Yet, everyone who lives on the Hill knows there is more to the story than that utopian vision. Students are sometimes judgmental and insensitive to viewpoints different than their own--if not downright intolerant. Events occurring within this academic year alone, ranging from vitriolic anonymous attacks posted on Hamilton Secrets to the various aggressions documented on Hamilton Unscrolled, have proven that Hamilton is far from one, big happy family.
In response to this environment, the Alexander Hamilton Institute Undergraduate Fellows and the Days-Massolo Center co-hosted a panel on free speech, comprised of two students, three professors and one administrator. The forum explored questions of limits on free speech, the difference between debate and dialogue and the assumptions that underlie speech acts.
While the hour and a half long discussion thoroughly examined issues of opinionating unpopular beliefs in the classroom and lecture hall as well as the importance of developing sound arguments in discussion, The Spectator believes that the heavy focus on academic speech was a misappropriation of time and energy. Yes, it is important for us to encourage differing viewpoints in classrooms and never silence an academic conversation simply on the grounds that it might be controversial.
However, where the issue of free speech at Hamilton seems most problematic is not in the classroom but outside of it -- in dormitories, on weekends, on the internet, etc. Whereas faculty members can moderate difficult conversations in classrooms, and even terminate ones that seem unproductive, such referees are not there to manage problematic situations that arise on Facebook or at a Bundy party.
At its best, Wednesday’s discussions touched upon questions raised by The Movement with Hamilton Unscrolled. Namely, attendees wondered how we could create inclusive and compassionate dialogues when no two members of Hamilton’s community fully understand each other’s experiences and upbringings. While neither professors nor students offered solutions to the issue, some present were able to shed light on mitigating difference. It is, as many pointed out, impossible to actually spend a day in someone’s shoes, but it is possible to understand the assumptions or values that underlie distinct identities. Students at Hamilton do not need to agree on everything, or even most things, but we should not place the burden on already marginalized students to explain where they come from in order to have a civil discussion.
We hope that this discussion continues on campus and that this is not the last collaboration between the AHI and Day-Massolo Center. However, we do advise that the next discussion focus primarily on Hamilton student experiences and less on abstract, academic notions of free speech. Though incidents of insensitivity seem inevitable to some, we should not take such a complacent attitude--especially on a campus that cherishes its community. Events like Wednesday’s are a step in the right direction, but if esoteric discussions do not lead to positive change, they are limiting their potential.
No comments yet.
Comment Guidelines
Please log in to post a comment