A small group of faculty at Williams College in Massachusetts, where I teach philosophy, had circulated a petition to have our institution sign a national pledge of allegiance to principles of free expression that originated at the University of Chicago. Over 50 colleges and universities, including Princeton and the Citadel, had already adopted the mainstream liberal principles, protecting both speakers and protesters.
I was cautiously optimistic. Like many liberal arts colleges, Williams had gone through a free-speech crisis — and survived. In 2016, our then-president canceled a talk from a conservative writer (the first presidential cancellation since 1865, when Ralph Waldo Emerson was barred from speaking on campus); he also ordered that a mural of the school’s founder be temporarily boarded over because of objections to its depiction of Native Americans.
. . . So it was with all this in mind that I went into a faculty meeting to present the free-expression “pledge” with the idea that we would have a productive discussion. Then reality hit.
As I stepped up to the lectern in one of the college’s elegant Federal-style halls, students marched into the room, bearing a letter naming me an “Enemy of the People.”
In the spirit of liberal openness, I read their letter aloud. This is what it said: “‘Free Speech,’ as a term, has been co-opted by right-wing and liberal parties as a discursive cover for racism, xenophobia, sexism, anti-semitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and classism.” The letter reserved special scorn for liberalism: “Liberal ideology asserts that morality is logical — that dehumanizing ideas can be fixed with logic and therefore need to be debated.” But, it added, “dehumanization cannot be discussed away.”
The letter finished, I started to reply. But a group of younger faculty in the front row demanded that I be quiet and let the students speak. And the students did. They had almost nothing to say about free speech; instead, they testified to the indignities they suffered at Williams. The dean of the college, who was in attendance, praised the students for their passion.
And so began Williams College’s annus horribilis, a year marked by protests, marches, threats and demands — everything but rational argument. A significant number of faculty not only supported this, but also instigated it. And the administration? Its response was to appoint a committee consisting of faculty, staff and students. Since “free speech” was now a dirty phrase, it was called “the Ad Hoc Committee on Inquiry and Inclusion.”
The year pretty much went downhill from there.You can enjoy more of the full "Gerrard Agonistes" by checking out two opinion pieces by Steven B. Gerrard in Bloomberg, both of which attack Williams College for failing in its mission to promote excellence, truth and scholarship.
The Rise of the Comfort College: At American universities, personal grievances are what everyone's talking about.
How Comfort Conquered College: The far right has already abandoned its respect for science. But the left has shown that it values dogma more than knowledge.
For me, the central point of Steven's articles is his self-serving Why Me? lament. I don't recall him ever leading the charge to bring more Republicans or conservatives to get hired into tenure track jobs. His personal defense isn't based on his academic contributions, only the mileage he gets by stressing his Jewish identity, or bragging he was woke enough to serve as the chair of the Williams faculty’s Diversity and Community Committee two decades ago.
He seems to be pleading that the angry student mob should give him credit for all the years he has advocated policies to discriminate against better qualified white male graduate students looking for teaching jobs at Williams College. Doesn't that count for anything?
