For much of the early part of my life, politics was marked by centrists in both political parties working to craft legislation that would benefit wide swaths of their constituencies. Many individuals considered themselves centrists and, though they affiliated with a particular party, it was not uncommon to vote across party lines in elections. And political discussions among neighbors and coworkers with differing views were not something to be avoided for harmony’s sake, but part of the fabric of American democracy.
The last 20-30 years, however, have been more notable for the rise of the culture wars and the drive to divide. We have seen political parties adopt a win-at-all-costs mentality that encourages American citizens with differing perspectives to not work through differences but instead reject other ways of thinking. Of the many casualties wrought by this divisiveness, civility and engaged citizenship have suffered considerably. More and more, we are tempted to retreat into bubbles of information that feed and reinforce our preconceived notions and beliefs and make us more resistant to listening and understanding.
Early in September we witnessed the result of this shift at Washington College when Princeton Professor Robert George came to our campus to give a lecture. George is a noted legal scholar and political philosopher who often speaks on free expression. He is also known for his outspoken opposition to same-sex marriage and for questioning the legitimacy of transgender people and their rights. During the speech, students gathered outside the venue for a peaceful protest. Unfortunately, a small group of students later chose to disrupt the event, bringing it to an early end. Since then, I have heard from many people, with some praising Washington College for its handling of the situation and others decrying the institution. This event demonstrates the critical nexus between divisiveness and openness that small colleges occupy.
The lecture was announced broadly on campus three days ahead of the event. I quickly received feedback from some community members asking me to cancel the event. I shared a message with campus saying that canceling the event would not be consistent with the core values of liberal learning to which Washington College is dedicated:
“Challenges concerning free expression are not new to college campuses and they raise complicated questions, especially for a campus that values diversity, equity, and inclusion like ours. However, inviting a speaker to campus is not an endorsement of their viewpoint. The very foundation of a Washington College liberal arts education is committed to informed, critical inquiry and the exploration of a wide diversity of perspectives—indeed, we could not be true to our mission to challenge and inspire emerging citizen leaders if we did not uphold this commitment. It is incumbent upon us as a community to create and maintain an environment in which everyone feels safe to share their ideas, even those that may be controversial or offensive. And as a community, we must examine and, when necessary, challenge those ideas, but we cannot insulate ourselves from differing viewpoints.”
Campus leaders also understood that students, faculty and staff members identifying as LGBTQ+ would be experiencing a range of feelings about this particular speaker being on campus, including anger, anxiety and fear. The College proactively facilitated alternate events for concerned students to express their reaction to the speaker’s presence on campus. These included opportunities for peaceful protest and locations for both group and individual conversations with professional and trained staff and students to allow campus community members to express their feelings and concerns and to be cared for appropriately.
At the lecture, about 140 students, faculty, alumni, and friends of the College joined us. Approximately 20 minutes into George’s lecture, a small group of protestors entered the room making noise with music and whistles for about one minute. Thereafter, two protestors were responsible for the remainder of the disruption. Faculty and student affairs staff intervened to try to reason with the protestors, insisting that they must permit the speaker to conclude his talk, after which there would be ample time for questions or rebuttals. Unfortunately, the two students disrupting the speaker—who had both been warned that they would face consequences for violating the student honor code—refused to end their protest and I made the reluctant decision to call an end to the event to prevent further escalation.
We have been asked why we did not forcibly remove the protestors. I understand that some may disagree, but as a private institution of higher learning, we must take responsibility to handle student issues individually and with discretion. Washington College is a place for students to learn, experiment, fail, and grow. We have guidelines and rules that are intentional in encouraging growth and learning in all our students—including when they make mistakes. It is through this approach that we foster a strong teaching environment and emphasize the value of citizenship. Our campus cannot become a bubble intended to shield students from differing viewpoints, but rather a place where they can be free to learn from mistakes and grow into responsible citizen leaders. We strive to instill in our students the ability for reasoned disagreement, and I am proud that so many of our students attended the lecture prepared to listen to the speaker, ask questions and even challenge his views.
As with any incident, it is a moment for the College to reflect and learn how to improve our processes. But the value of a small college is our ability to act with nuance in the best interests of fulfilling our mission. Washington College and other top liberal arts colleges sit in a unique and ever more difficult position—we are committed to creating engaged citizen leaders who are open to different perspectives and have both the passion and compassion to care for their communities, and we must do all of this within a larger cultural environment that is trying harder than ever to force them to choose sides. Now, more than ever, colleges and universities must maintain space where civil discourse can thrive, even when it concerns topics of existential import. If we fail to do this, no less than the values of citizenship and democracy will be at stake.
Mike Sosulski, Ph.D.
President, Washington College
Donald L.. Singleton, Ph.D. says
I do not know where Dr. Sosulski studied the First Amendment but surely he encountered the notion that First Amendment Freedoms do not include inviting pigs into the parlor. Why would any rational person expect that when you invite a speaker who embodies the kind of aggressive fascist thinking which threatens other humans’ very existence that equally aggressive speech would not follow. All the logic chopping in the world will not support this bad decision.
Carol Chisholm says
I’m not sure where you got your Ph.D ., but at mine listening to dissenting voices, allowing others to articulate their positions so I might debate with reason and data made me the kind of person I’m proud to be. My assumption may be wrong but I’m wondering if your degree was conferred by one of those joke-for-profit institutions which allow graduation without education.
John Fischer says
There will be two certain outcomes from this incident, neither pretty. Either Washington College will never again invite a speaker with views counter to popular culture to campus or students, learning from happened here, will again shout down men and women with the audacity to speak freely within their insulated safe space.
Reed Fawell 3 says
You are right on target. How disappointing. The President’s statement explains all.
Al Sikes says
Pig? Fascist? Perhaps a language requirement might be added to the PH.D. requirements.
Sharron Cassavant, PhD says
Sorry. Your PR pitch doesn’t wash. Liberal arts colleges have a unique obligation to espouse true liberal values, which includes providing students the opportunity to hear many points of view. The invited speaker was disrespected. The college was held up to widespread ridicule. Students were robbed of an opportunity. Why were the disrupters admitted to the hall?
Reed Fawell 3 says
At the risk of violating the safe spaces so carefully guarded by Washington College’s president to protect his students from the world outside his college walls, I share an essay I received this morning from the Witherspoon Institute up at Princeton named after John Witherspoon, a leading member of the Continental Congress, signer of the Declaration of Independence, sixth president of Princeton University, and mentor to James Madison, and who strengthened the College’s programs in English and rhetoric, saying;
“The knowledge of God and his truths have from the beginning of the world been chiefly, if not entirely confined to those parts of the earth where some degree of liberty and political justice were to be seen, and great were the difficulties with which they had to struggle, from the imperfection of human society, and the unjust decisions of usurped authority.”
The essay A New Iliad was written by Joshua Katz –
“A New Iliad, translated by Emily Wilson, signals that this is not quite the Homer we’re used to… Her Iliad suggests a particular fascination with two topics: death and the musicality of language. All translators of the Iliad have to grapple with death, of course, but Wilson’s translation lives up to her statement—expressed in characteristically gorgeous prose—that [h]uman mortality is at the center of it all. I know no other narrative that evokes with such unflinching truthfulness the vulnerability of the human body. Yet The Iliad also makes the whole world feel gloriously alive. People, gods, animals, and even objects are always in motion, swooping down mountains or dashing across the field of battle. The beautiful, rhythmical language evokes the noisy clash of bronze and the rumble of the sea.
Here, chosen pretty well at random from near the beginning of Book 21, is just one passage that shows off Wilson’s artistry at depicting the horrors brought on by metal and water together in war:
Divine Achilles left his spear to lie
among the tamarisks on the riverbank.
With just his sword he leapt into the river,
his heart intent on ruin, like a god.
Whirling around, he hacked and slashed and struck them,
and from the victims of his blade arose
desperate, agonizing wails. The water
ran red with blood—just as when other fish
flee from a massive, monstrous dolphin, filling
the nooks and hiding places of a harbor
in terror, and he gulps the one he catches—
so did the Trojans cower and shrink back
within the currents of the fearsome river
beneath the overhanging banks.
It is hard to read this vignette without gasping—but then again, it is hard to read many pages of the Iliad, in the original or in a good translation, without gasping. This, in Wilson’s searing prose, is the reason why:
You already know the story. You will die. Everyone you love will also die. You will lose them forever. You will be sad and angry. You will weep. You will bargain. You will make demands. You will beg. You will pray. It will make no difference. Nothing you can do will bring them back. You know this. Your knowing changes nothing. This poem will make you understand this unfathomable truth again and again, as if for the very first time.”
This is the real world that all the graduates of Washington College, without exception, will face. Will Dr. Sosulski’s Washington College, its faculty, and administrators, prepare those students to meet that challenge that we all, as human beings in this fallen fallen world, will face, whether we know it or not?
If so, with what?
Howard Freedlander says
Thoughtless decision to allow two students to stop Professor George, a renowned Princeton scholar, from completing his remarks. Robert George, whose views contrast with mine, deserved respect and attention. Instead, Washington College offered him disrespect and rudeness.
Lisa Connors says
My husband and I were two of the unfortunate attendees of the Washington College lecture featuring Robert P. George speaking on the truth-seeking mission of the university. Dr. George was speaking about how the fundamental purpose of colleges and universities – the pursuit, preservation and transmission of knowledge — is damaged when students are denied hearing opposing points of view, when the group of students burst into the room.
From what we could glean between the F-bombs, Hitler references, music and whistles it seemed the protesters were convinced Dr. George wished them some kind of harm and therefore he should not be allowed to speak. However, not a single protester was able to articulate how Dr. George’s positions created a threat to their freedoms, much less their well-being.
We were very surprised that no one from the administration of the college was willing to take any action against the protesters. Although there were several security personnel in the room, they were clearly ordered not to engage or to usher the students out. It was not until after the event that we learned that the president of the college was in attendance and chose to do nothing to stop the protesters.
In his letter, Dr Sosulski congratulates himself for sending out a campus-wide communique telling students that allowing speakers such as Dr George to speak on campus fits neatly within the tradition of Washington College’s commitment to free expression. Yet when his communique was completely disregarded by a number of students, he then congratulates himself for his decision to allow these students to successfully brandish the “hecklers veto” and shut down free expression. His post hoc rationalization for his response to the actions of these students is frankly, embarrassing and certainly sends a message of who is actually in charge on campus.