Mon 2 Nov 2009
Speakers for Claiming Williams
Posted by David under Claiming Williams, Harry Jackson '75, WSO, Wendy Shalit '97 at 11:25 am
From WSO:
This year during Claiming Williams Day, on Thursday, February 4, 2010, speakers, performers, and facilitators from many fields will appeal to a wide range of interests. We hope that you will join them!
Just how “wide” is the “range of interests” that the organizers are looking for? To the extent that they want to hear some non-PC musings about diversity at Williams from an alum, I am available that day . . .
Who would you suggest? How about Wendy Shalit ‘97 or Harry Jackson ‘75?
Print • Email| « Wende | The Great Idea Campaign » |
95 Responses to “Speakers for Claiming Williams”
Leave a Reply
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
rory says:
I’m sure everyone at williams has heard more than enough about diversity from you, me, and a couple other people here.
note: if not, I’m also free! :P
JeffZ says:
David, if you seriously want to argue that Williams should invite a diversity of perspectives, fine, but you kinda undermine your own argument by suggesting people with a demonstrated history of animus towards a minority group on the Williams campus or who made a name for themselves via misrepresenting life as it actually occurs on the Williams campus. Just because someone holds some crazy, outlandish views (in these cases, gays are responsible for problems in the black community, or women were better off in Victorian society than they are today) doesn’t mean their perspective would be valuable for a sizeable portion of campus. I can’t imagine that there are NO conservative speakers with valuable perspective on diversity issues. Why not try to find some?
David says:
In your world, there aren’t. The only valuable perspectives are offered by various flavors of liberals. Someone like me or Wendy Shalit ‘97 or Harry Jackson ‘75 can’t have anything useful to say about diversity, by definition.
Ronit says:
@JeffZ: I hardly think it’s fair to say that Wendy Shalit was misrepresenting life at Williams. I think she was giving her own, honest perspective on a culture that can indeed be fairly shocking to anyone from a socially conservative background. What specific things do you think she misrepresented about life at Williams?
JeffZ says:
David, incorrect. I don’t think David Duke has anything valuable to say about race. But plenty of conservatives have valuable things to say about race. I don’t think either of these speakers would add anything of value to Claiming Williams. How that equates to NO conservative could add anything of value, I don’t really see, except in your own paranoid version of reality where anyone who is not enamored of a particular conservative speaker or conservative viewpoint is, by definition, someone with an anti-conservative bias. It’s sort like me accusing you of not liking black people every time you take issue with Barack Obama. That would be equally ridiculous. I mean, I don’t even know if Jackson is, generally, conservative (I tend to doubt it). I just don’t see how his perspective on gay issues would in any way add to a constructive campus discourse.
David says:
Here is a reality check: Name a conservative associated with Williams who you think would make for a worthwhile speaker at Claiming Williams.
JeffZ says:
Well, keep in mind my she was my classmate so my perspective is informed by my time at Williams. I read a lot of her articles on campus during her time at Williams, many of which were pretty whacky (the Victorian one being my favorite example). I even responded to some in writing. I found her absolutely impossible to have any sort of discourse with for reasons completely unrelated to any view she held, and completely in line with her method of argumentation (which in every single case in my experience involved citing a whole bunch of writers rather than responding to any argument actually made against her — it was like she had a conservative playbook she would recite by wrote memory rather than actually addressing what was ever said to challenge her). So some of my feelings about the value she’d add to any sort of dialogue derives from those experiences, and my own sense of her complete lack of interest in having any sort of serious discussion with anyone who doesn’t hold her exact views.
But I was upset that Williams became known for awhile thanks to her as some incredibly PC place where you were branded unenlightened if you weren’t in favor of co-ed bathrooms. I remember a lot of discussion over this issue at my time at Williams and not a single ioata of it had to do with branding people as outcasts if they didn’t agree with some dominant liberal paradigm. Rather, it came down to people being too lazy to walk down the hall or up a flight of stairs to use a single-sex bathroom, vs. other folks’ completely reasonable and, from what I observed, never-derided discomfort with unisex bathrooms. I felt that she imported a non-existent culture war to Willaims to suit her own purposes, and didn’t really investigate any facts or perspectives that were inconvenient for a sensationalistic, incorrect view of campus life.
JeffZ says:
I am not sure any of them would speak about diversity, but there are lots of Williams-affiliated conservatives I think would, generally, make excellent speakers on campus on any topic of their choosing, Dan Drezner (he is conservative, right?), Whitney Wilson, I can’t actually think of that many people I know of who went to Williams who ARE public conservatives, but if you give me a list of names, I’m sure I could find some who would be fine campus speakers.
Oh, just thought of one: KC Johnson. Not a conservative generally, but on these types of issues, would probably be considered one. Happy?
David says:
1) I can’t say that I know everyone’s voting record here, but I believe that all your suggested “conservative” speakers voted for Obama. Not that there is anything wrong with that!
2) I agree that KC Johnson would make an excellent speaker at Claiming Williams and that, on topics related to diversity, he is certainly fairly characterized as “conservative.” I am “happy.” (And, as always, I should not give you such a hard time on these topics since my views are much closer to yours than they are to those of many/most other EphBlog regulars.
3) So, you and I both think that someone like KC Johnson should be a speaker at Claiming Williams. But, within the context of the Williams faculty, you are a crazy right-winger, just like me. So, odds of Williams actually inviting KC are zero.
rory says:
@David: jesus h. christ @ this: “But, within the context of the Williams faculty, you are a crazy right-winger, just like me. So, odds of Williams actually inviting KC are zero.”
evidence? in particular, evidence that this is because of political viewpoint and not, say, the fact that faculty generally don’t like it when fellow faculty attack other fellow faculty?
oh, and range of interest isn’t defined solely by political viewpoint. what a tired talking point of conservatism.
basically, in this case, your point boiled down to “if you don’t agree that the speakers i want should come, then your opinion on speakers is biased and unacceptable!” it is, in short, the bizarro mirror of the criticism you offer for us liberals.
David says:
Rory: I can’t understand your comment above. Please write more clearly.
Imagine that there is a spectrum of opinion on political-issues-related-to-Williams. No single dimension is perfect, but the first principal component usually captures a lot of the variation. Rank the Williams faculty along that spectrum. Now, place me somewhere. Surely we both agree that I would be on the far right? Now, place Jeff on that spectrum. As best I can tell, he would be on the far right as well. (Compare his opinions on KC Johnson with those of, say, the Africana Studies professors.) So, within a Williams context, I am closer in my opinions to Jeff than I am to almost all Williams faculty.
JeffZ says:
Beyond knowing that most (or all?) of them tend to vote Democrat, I don’t really understand the basis for your assessment of the views of Williams faculty members. As such, I have no idea where I would fit along their ideological spectrum, considering that, like most or all of them, I also tend to vote Democrat.
JeffZ says:
And by the way, I’ve never gotten the sense that there is a substantial cohort of professors at Williams who are remotely comparable to the group of profs at Duke KC is critical of …
Derek says:
My question: Why on any matter related to race or politics (or hell, even on modern conservatism — he is a conservative; doesn’t make him an expert on it any more than my being a carbon-based life form makes me a an expert on biology) are we even letting David be a gatekeeper here? On such issues, David is a nonentity. He just is. Other than bitching at Ephblog, he has no record of publication on these things. He has no intellectual background in these areas. He is just a conservative white guy who bitches about people thinking race, class, and gender are important. Giving Dave any sort of central voice on this is like waiting breathlessly for the advice of a priest on preferred sexual positions. There might be comedic value, and we might position ourselves for outrage, but really, isn’t it our own fault?
dcat
David says:
Many years of reading what they write and listening to what they say. Also, for most practical purposes, the faculty runs Williams, so the policies that the College follows are a fair, although not perfect, representation of faculty views.
Well, these judgments are imperfect at best and I could easily be wrong. For the most part, I am basing my estimate on the general gestalt I get from reading your comments over many years and on your frequent (and correct!) praise of KC Johnson.
But, perhaps it is simpler to leave you out of the discussion and just place KC somewhere on the Williams spectrum. Consider this and this, this and this. (I heartily agree with all these sentiments.) Perhaps I could name a few (2? 5?) Williams faculty members who maybe share some of KC views on these topics. None are brave enough to say so.
If Jeff like KC on these topics and I like KC on these topics and (almost) no member of the Williams faculty agrees, either privately or publicly, then I/Jeff/KC are similar outliers relative to the Williams faculty.
Derek: Your thoughtful contributions to EphBlog are always welcome.
Sam says:
dcat,
Word.
Derek says:
David –
Well, I have the benefit of being right. Plus I write better than you do, so I keep the peeps entertained.
dcat
David says:
Sam,
Perhaps you could give us some insights into where KC Johnson would fit in the spectrum of opinion amongst the Williams faculty? Here is KC on the consultant report written by Evelyn Hu-DeHart as part of the Diversity Initiatives at Williams.
I can’t think of a single Williams faculty member who was so critical, at least publicly, of the Diversity Initiatives. Can you?
rory says:
Sam, I can’t think of a worse basis to judge williams’ faculty ideological diversity than their public statements about that report, can you?
Sam says:
Can’t…type…now…leftists have taken over my building…call John Yoo…he’ll straighten them out….
rory says:
@Sam: leftists took it over? what? Oh, you mean you’re having a departmental meeting, right?
:)
David says:
Sam: So funny! The fact that you don’t care to confront the arguments made by someone like KC Johnson demonstrates the point that I am making to Jeff: At Williams, KC Johnson is just another right-wing nut that folks like Sam (probably a moderate at Williams!) do not deign to engage with.
JG says:
Actually David, not engaging with you says absolutely nothing about the faculty at Williams or KC Johnson. It has everything to do with you.
Sam says:
Yes, JG, that’s it… Oh my God! The tenured radicals are coming for my child…run….
David says:
JG: Well, please offer us some advice. Assume for a second that one of the hundreds of other alumni/parent/student readers at EphBlog is curious about what the Williams faculty think about KC Johnson’s opinions on the Williams Diversity Initiatives. How would you recommend she find out?
Ronit says:
I honestly think Wendy Shalit would be a perfect invite for this. She represents a point of view that is certainly underrepresented at Williams. If she is ideological and has a political ax to grind, that makes her not much different from many other diversity speakers that are often invited to these things. I defer to Jeff’s judgment about her (lack of) reasonableness and openness to debate, but if true, she seems to have merely copied the playbook of her leftwing counterparts.
Sam says:
Funny: last week Kane was claiming (falsely) that he was a faculty member. Now he is wondering about Williams faculty opinion. If he really believed himself he would simply ask himself how he felt…..
Derek says:
I consider KC Johnson a friend and colleague (we participated in the Supreme Court Historical Society seminar in Washington a few years back) and so I am reluctant fully to engage this particular question because KC did not ask to be put forward as a Kane stalking horse at Ephblog. KC has much to say on issues of diversity, hiring, and so forth within academia. Some I agree with. Some I do not. He is a first-rate historian and scholar. He would be a fine speaker on issues of diversity at Williams. he sure as hell deserves better than to have Kane speak for him.
He also left Williams under less-than-ideal circumstances. Those circumstances would explain far more about why Johnson might or might not be invited to speak at Williams than ideology would. Given that Dave is aware of those circumstances and thus the problematic nature of such an invitation, his being so quick to toss out accusations about someone else’s “thoughtfulness” (note how Dave set himself up as the barometer for what is and is not thoughtful — remind us how much we missed him during his month away again?) is quite ironic. I am not much interested in determining whether Dave’s practised obtuseness is merely willful or instead is another sign of his rampant intellectual dishonesty. At this point, distinguishing between the options is not cost effective.
Oh — and there still is no reason for me to be discussing these issues with someone whose opinions on them do not matter. Dammit — suckered again by the harpy siren song of bad argumentation that is Ephblog when Kane is up to his tricks.
dcat
jeffz says:
I can’t quibble with Ronit on that point — as evidenced by this blog (which I think is more prone to reasonable exchange of ideas on MOST topics most places on the ol’ interwebs, which instead tend to be a gathering of like minded people preaching to the choir or fighting the occasional flamer …) people on both sides of the fence tend to get a little, errrr, overheated when it comes to issues of diversity … you can probably count on one hand the number of times a Shalit or a Farred or maybe a DeHart from the sound of it (I don’t know much about her) has ever said to someone on the other side, hey, ya know, I never thought of things that way, you may have a point …
Ronit says:
Comment withdrawn by author. Some things are probably better left unsaid.
rory says:
@ david: smh. i’d put “go public on ephblog” just above “curse out the williams president at convocation” in terms of successful ways to find out about the ideological views of williams faculty. And that might be being too nice to ephblog. You don’t go to a pizza place and get surprised they don’t have fine dining on the menu. I’d recommend asking them in private and off the record. jesus christ. I’d also ask them why they’re interested in such a weird thing to be interested in (“professor, what do you think of this other professors thoughts about what this third professor thought about what williams should do five years ago under a different president?”)
@ ronit: cmon. “a pox on both your houses”? While the left has their (our?) embarrassing demagogues, it’s not so simple as to claim “the left” wrote the playbook on avoiding debate. Dressed in pure cynicism, fine, both sides have demagogues (shocking!), but as written, you seem to be implying the left created and refined the craft of making outrageous claims and then avoiding discussion. do you mean to? care to back that up?
Sam: the tenured radicals are coming for your child? You mean a faculty family picnic, right?
Ronit says:
@rory: I have no real view of Shalit’s political methods, because I haven’t read her books or articles in depth, but going by a couple of reviews it seems that she defines herself as a “counter-revolutionary” against radical feminism and the sexual revolution. Counter-revolutionaries do frequently co-opt the tactics and tropes of that which they oppose. (See also: Ayn Rand, Irving Kristol, David Horowitz, etc.)
I shall have to read her book to argue this point further.
I seemed cynical in the earlier post, because I was mocking the suggestion that conservatives have some kind of exclusive hold on crazy and outlandish views, but I am not being cynical in arguing for her inclusion; I think that she could bring an entirely valid and underrepresented viewpoint to the Williams campus, and it is too bad that someone like her probably would not be considered for inclusion in any talk about diversity. If Wendy Shalit is somehow outside the pale at Williams, then the ideological openness of Williams is less than I would have expected.
Ronit says:
One of Shalit’s main ideas seems to be that the hook-up culture is dehumanizing to both men and women. Whether or not you agree with this, the moral implications of this particular form of relationship is not something that was often discussed at Williams in my time. Would it be a bad idea to invite a speaker who encourages men and women at Williams to take a critical look at their own social lives and question whether or not it leads anywhere good? In the spirit of inclusiveness, it would give a voice to all those who opt out of that culture.
Derek says:
Smart conservatives ought to be welcomed to any conversation. No one is objecting to that rather obvious assertion — indeed, it’s a truism. Neither party or and neither of the grand American ideological traditions corners the market on wisdom nor on demagoguery. Again, this is a truism.
But look at the original post from David: “if they want to hear some non-PC musings” they can contact him. Well goody goody. If they want to hear from an alum who has no particular qualifications on the topic and who has no particular record as a public intellectual and who has already cast the whole effort as an exercise in PC they need look no further. Well, why not just jump at that opportunity, c’mon Williams! What are you afraid of!
I once fell down, and I had strong feelings about it, which I expressed right away on my blog. So if Williams wants someone to come in and talk about gravity in a non-sciencey way, I am available that day . . .
dcat
David says:
Derek writes:
So you say. Were any “smart conservatives” invited to Claiming Williams last year? No. I therefore suspect that even if I were a “public intellectual” with “particular qualifications on the topic,” I would not be invited. Wendy Shalit won’t be invited either. Nor will KC Johnson. In fact, no one who might remotely be labeled a conservative, including folks like KC and me who voted for Obama, will be invited.
Do you think that is a problem?
Sam writes:
In the spirit of reconciliation, I was going to let this issue drop. But it looks like you will be bringing it up forever, so better to settle it. I claimed, correctly, to be a “former faculty member.” I did not specify the school because I thought it obnoxious to write, “former faculty member at Harvard” when sending an e-mail to Bill Wagner who, obviously, knows exactly my status as a Winter Study instructor at Williams. But, when dealing with someone like Sam, perhaps obnoxiousness is the better part of valor. So, next time, I will be sure to include at Harvard, since it would make Sam happy.
Whitney Wilson '90 says:
If Claiming Williams is supposed to be an academic discussion of diversity, then I suppose David lacks the academic credentials in the diversity field and should probably be excluded. But it seems to me that the issue is of such emotional/societal import that it shouldn’t be limited to only academics, so that someone like David could be a valuable participant.
student10 says:
So, I assume the original comment by David was a joke (about asking him, at least), so for all those who were looking for an example of a perfectly legitimate post by David that gets shot down by the more liberal frequent authors for no reason other than he wrote it- here it is.
rory says:
@ student10–if you’ll note, the shooting down of david wasn’t about his suggestion of himself (derek’s first post excluded, but their history is long and complicated)–look at my first comment for proof of that. It was about his specific recommendations.
@ ronit–I don’t know shalit enough either. I was responding to the implication, that you’ve continued, that the left created the demogague playbook and the right just got its hands on it later. I highly dispute that implication.
@ everyone arguing for more “conservative” speakers at claiming williams. We have groups on campus that are funded to bring conservative speakers. They come. D’Souza’s visited, for example. But is that claiming williams’ goal? If claiming williams’ desire is to push for everyone at williams to be able to claim the school as their own, would someone who describes other lifestyles that are prevalent at williams as immoral a good idea? Does that fit the mission? Or should it instead be brought into the conversation by some other group?
David says:
Rory asks “But is that claiming williams’ goal?”
Good question! The phrase “appeal to a wide range of interests” is ambivalent at best. My guess is No.
My guess is that Claiming Williams is completely very interested in certain types of students and completely uninterested, if not actively hostile, to other types of students. Recall this Record op-ed by Jacquelin Magby:
Without getting into the details of this dispute, it is fairly obvious that Magby takes her Christian faith much more seriously than most Ephs and his much more public in her viewpoints. Is there a place for her at Claiming Williams? If so, why not invite a committed and prominent Christian minister and alumnus like Harry Jackson ‘75 to speak?
The reason, of course, is that the sort of folks who run Williams (and who run Claiming Williams) don’t really think that people like Jackson (and Magby?) belong here. There is no need to represent their views or worry about their concerns.
rory says:
@David: red herring/concern troll activated! because Harry Jackson is only a committed and prominent minister and no other terms might possibly be available to describe him or the reasons why he might not be on the list of claiming williams’ invited speakers list. just like KC Johnson is only off the list purely because of his critique of Hu-dehart, right? what unmitigated gall you have to make those types of patently untrue claims.
(oh, btw, I got my name chanted by a drunk party one night in my dorm too because they falsely believed I called security on them. Did williams not want me either, David? smh)
Sam says:
Falsehood:
“The reason, of course, is that the sort of folks who run Williams (and who run Claiming Williams) don’t really think that people like Jackson (and Magby?) belong here.”
Truly scurrilous to state that the “sort of folks who run Williams” have an animus toward Christian students. Truly scurrilous….
And, of course Kane elides a central truth: Magby supported the Stand with Us effort:
“And when I couldn’t speak or stand up for myself, Williams unknowingly did it for me. To the people that harassed me, I forgive you whether you are sorry or not. And to all those who started the Stand With Us movement, I want to say, no, thank you for standing with me.”
JeffZ says:
Yes David, Williams clearly wants no Christians on campus. That must of been why, instead of recently spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to renovate an enormous Chapel in the heart of campus, the college converted it to a new gymnasium. I would agree with you if your statement was, the college wants no racists, sexists, or homophobes on campus. Your current statement, however, is absolutely ridiculous.
David says:
Depends on your definition of “homophobes” doesn’t it?
This argument should not be that hard to follow.
1) Claiming Williams is inviting speakers to campus.
2) I think (and have suggested to them) that they should invite Reverend Harry Jackson ‘75. Judging from Magby’s experience, it appears that some Christian students at Williams have their religious faith attacked by their peers.
Magby’s religion was mocked by her fellow Williams students.
3) If Claiming Williams were to invite Jackson, or someone similar, then we would all be happy.
4) But Williams is not going to invite Jackson, or anyone like him, because the people that run Williams are like, well, Jeff, Rory and Sam. They don’t have anything against Christians per se, but they have huge problems with Christian ministers like Jackson who are against gay marriage. (Although I have no data on this, I would expect that at least 5% of Williams students are also against gay marriage.)
5) Since African-American are overwhelmingly against gay marriage, and since this is probably even more true for African-American ministers (and since the pool of African-American minister Ephs is not a large one), this probably means that Williams will not be inviting an alumnus speaker who shares Magby’s race and religion.
Does all this mean that Williams has an “animus toward Christian students?” Of course not! Williams has an animus toward alums like Harry Jackson ‘75?, alums who share the majority opinion of their community about gay marriage.
So, just to be clear on what we are arguing about, I have a simple question for Rory, Jeff, Sam and others:
I think that Williams should invite Jackson, precisely because his background and views are in the minority. Williams belongs to him too.
JeffZ says:
David, I’ve already explained in tremendous detail in a previous thread, and you know damn well, that Jackson isn’t merely someone who opposes gay marriage. I would not be opposed to President Obama speaking at Williams, and, much to my chagrin, he also opposes gay marriage. As do the majority of members of congress, I imagine. But as I’ve already gone over, Jackson’s main interest in his public life, as well as his primary source of notoriety, is the demonization of gays and the blaming of gays for problems in the black community. That goes wayyyy beyond just being opposed to gay marriage. Just to spell it out as simply as possible so as to avoid any further confusion on your part: I would not want someone speaking on campus at an event about INCLUSION of people who often feel excluded at Williams whose primary mission in his public life is, apparently, the EXCLUCSION of one particular such group from the community. If you want to have a Christian minister whose focus is on alienation of Christians at colleges like Williams, bring em to campus, by all means. But just like I wouldn’t want, say, an Islamic or Jewish preacher who conssitently preaches that Christians are going to hell and are the source of evil in our community, I don’t think someone whose primary mission is the demonization of a minority group is an appropriate speaker at Claiming Williams. Call me crazy, I know.
Ronit says:
@JeffZ: Is Thompson Chapel really even a Christian building anymore?
@rory: Is Wendy Shalit a racist, sexist or homophobe?
David says:
“primary mission in his public life” Evidence, please. Here is Jackson on health care and the poor and Van Jones. If you like, I can post dozens of articles by Jackson on a variety of topics. He cares about the full range of topics that you might expect a minister to care about. Here is the website for his church. Surf around it a bit. You claimed:
No fair minded person could look at his webpage and the collection of his writings and conclude that his “primary mission” is to stop gay marriage.
JeffZ says:
David, here are Jackson’s columns:
http://townhall.com/columnists/HarryRJacksonJr
It appears that a majority of them deal with gays / marriage. Without any doubt, there is no other single topic that he is REMOTELY as interested in / concerned about. This is his primary mission. Your claim to the contrary is disengenuous and belied by the readily available evidence.
PTC says:
How about
Andrew Sullivan?
Williams Bennett?
Jameson Campaigne?
David says:
So, Harry Jackson would be welcome to speak at Williams, as far as you are concerned, if he kept his opinions on gay marriage to himself? Good to know. I guess Claiming Williams does not include Ephs like Jackson. Perhaps you should suggest to the admissions office that they also reject applicants who agree with Jackson about gay marriage, or maybe just the ones who are public in their beliefs?
JeffZ says:
Let me ask YOU David, how do you think it would make gay students (who apparently already feel some discomfort at Williams, as in many places in life / society) feel if one of the guest speakers at an event geared towards making minorities at Williams feel more included, one of the guest speakers is someone who has opined that gays are morally inferior by virtue of their proclivity for infidelity and their loose sexual mores, are trying to take over schools with a gay agenda, and are generally responsible for problems with heterosexual marriage in any society in which gay marriage has been legalized. Because these are the types of arguments Jackson makes. It’s like bringing a white speaker to campus during Claiming Williams who believes that blacks are all drug users and criminals and allowing blacks to marry whites will lead to more drug use and criminality in our society. It is exactly the same thing. So apparently, you think just such a speaker would help further Claiming Williams’ goals. Good to know. Again, Claiming Williams isn’t about putting forth every conceivable view about diversity out there. It is about addressing a perceived issue of exclusivity on campus. Bringing a group of speakers who promote exclusivity and make demeanding, stereotype-laden remarks about minority groups would accomplish the exact opposite of Claiming Williams’ goals. Which, I guess, is what you want.
JeffZ says:
David, for the love of God, here is where we differ. I think for an event aiming to promoting tolerance and inclusivity, it is not smart to bring as featured speakers those who promote intolerance and exclusivity. You believe the opposite. Let’s agree to disagree.
rory says:
@Ronit: As with you, I know too little about Shalit to make a claim either way. Nor, I believe, have I done so. I do find victorian nostalgia to be a ridiculously stupid viewpoint, but I don’t know her well enough to judge. However, that’s got nothing to do with my question to you that has gone unanswered multiple times.
@ david: if you honestly think that’s our position, you’re quite frankly, an idiot. Also, the goalposts have moved so absurdly across your comments (as usual) as to make arguing with you even more of a waste of time than derek originally claimed. now harry jackson should be invited because he’s a black christian, and not because of his ideological stance? spin spin spin!
rory says:
holy crap, david’s latest silly missive is beyond belief. thank god he’s got no actual power to influence claiming williams. i hope it goes well this year!
David says:
Jeff asks:
I think that some would be very upset.
Does the “perceived issue of exclusivity on campus” include Christian students with conservative beliefs about issues like marriage and abortion and so on? I think it should. Keep in mind that Magby’s religion was mocked by her fellow Williams students. If Claiming Williams is not trying to address the fact that some students at Williams feel comfortable mocking the traditional Christian beliefs of their peers, then it has drifted fairly far from its origins.
The problem, of course, is that many Ephs find traditional Christian beliefs deeply offensive. There are two approaches one can take to that problem. First (what Williams does and probably will do): Do not invite any speakers with those beliefs. Second, invite such speakers and provide a forum for an honest and open exchange of views.
JeffZ says:
So you’ve answered my question. You think we should invite racist speakers as well, because any racists on campus hold beliefs that are generally unpopular, to the point where they might feel excluded. Good to know.
Ronit says:
@David: I don’t think Williams excludes Christianity from campus events; here is a recent example:
http://www.williams.edu/admin/news/releases/319/
I also don’t like you conflating “Christianity” with Harry Jackson’s views on homosexuality. Feel free to use “socially conservative” or “reactionary” to refer to his views (the less polite may use a word like “bigoted”), but there is nothing particularly or inherently Christian about being anti-homosexual. Jackson’s views may be shared by socially conservative Jews or Muslims, and there are many Christian congregations that would strongly disagree with the idea that his message of exclusion is the correct Christian view.
rory says:
@David: again, harry jackson is far from the best speaker to discuss “perceived exclusion” on campus for christian students (has he ever written about it? meanwhile, there are actually ministers who do work on that particular issue). Also again, Magby support(s?) the claiming williams group and believes it is helping to improve the campus. again, your goalposts have shifted dramatically in defense of reverend Jackson. And again, derek was right.
Williams invites a long list of distinguished speakers from the left and right (maybe not entirely balanced 50/50, but both sides do come to campus). Claiming Williams, however, might not do so. You have conflated the two. It is not claiming williams’ duty nor goal to represent the political spectrum of campus or even to address ever possible way in which exclusion happens on campus (what are they doing about international students? do they do anything on urban vs. rural students? etc.?). Rather, their goal is to put together events that address those forms of exclusion that matter deeply to them. To not address a particular form of exclusion is not to say it is unworthy or non-existant, but rather not their particular focus. To fault them for that is to make the perfect (and I’d argue your definition of perfect isn’t, but whatever) the enemy of the good.
David says:
Jeff: “You think we should invite racist speakers as well” No, I don’t. I have never met a racist Williams student (or graduate). There is no need to represent views that don’t exist, in meaningful numbers, on campus.
Have you ever met a racist Williams student? How did you determine that they were a racist?
Ronit: No one is arguing that “Williams excludes Christianity from campus events.” I am arguing that Williams excludes speakers with traditional Christian beliefs — I think that “traditional” is a better term than “conservative” — from Claiming Williams. As best I can tell, Rory, Jeff and Sam are perfectly representative of the sort of Ephs who run Claiming Williams and they would not invite Harry Jackson because he has conservative Christian beliefs about marriage.
I agree that this has nothing to do with Christianity per se. If Jackson were a Jewish or Muslim religious leader with similar views on gay marriage, he would not be invited to Claiming Williams.
Ronit says:
@rory: Claiming Williams’ mission statement:
Claiming Williams invites the community to acknowledge and understand the uncomfortable reality that not all students, staff, and faculty can equally “claim” Williams. By challenging the effects of the College’s history of inequality that are based on privileges of class, race, gender, sexuality and religion, we will provoke individual, institutional, and cultural change.
Link
Exclusion on religious grounds seems to be entirely part of what “Claiming Williams” is “about”.
kthomas says:
Answer 1: I consulted the OED:
noun 1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.
David says:
Rory: “Rather, their goal is to put together events that address those forms of exclusion that matter deeply to them.”
Agreed! I think that, as always at EphBlog, we have iterated to agreement. The people who run Claiming Williams want to “address those forms of exclusion that matter deeply to them.” Some forms of exclusion, based on conservative religious and/or political views, don’t matter to them. And that is a pity.
David says:
Ken: I don’t think that Jeff wants to use that definition of racist, c.f. affirmative action at Williams.
Ronit says:
Can we at least agree that religious exclusion is something Claiming Williams claims to care about? If so, inviting a speaker who has a publishing record on the exclusion of students with traditional religious views at Williams would seem to be a perfect choice. Hence: Wendy Shalit
David says:
Ronit: Excellent catch on the Claiming Williams mission statement!
I predict that Jeff, Rory and Sam will be against inviting Shalit. She is against gay marriage (among other things) and her public positions will make some students upset and angry. Since J/R/S don’t want those students to be upset, Williams can’t invite Shalit.
Claiming Williams said that they cared about “religion,” but they did not mean that to include conservative religious beliefs.
Jr. Mom says:
I keep seeing the word “traditional” thrown around in defining those who are excluded for their religious beliefs.
I find it hard to believe that anyone at Williams is excluded for holding traditional Christian values. I think they are more likely excluded for adhering to viewpoints that include proselytizing and/or making judgments on the behavior of others.
rory says:
No, David, there’s no agreement (except on a basic fact) here because you seem to think there’s something wrong with what they’re doing and I don’t.
as to your line about affirmative action, that’s laughably wrong.
Ronit–the line about “privilege” might lead to an argument that traditional christianity is not unprivileged @ williams or in society more broadly. It’s like if athletes wanted to bring a speaker on athletics and american culture because they feel marginalized in the classroom at times. Valid, but is that due to a lack of “privilege”. This is, to a significant extent, quibbling. but the exclusion of traditional christianity is in some form, fundamentally different from the exclusion of muslims or hindus or atheists on a campus because once one leaves pockets of elite liberal areas traditional christianity holds great power in society.
To put it far better, if claiming williams had the money to invite one speaker, should they bring a wendy shalit or a leading figure on integrating islam and american society? I’d pick the second, personally, as more fitting their mission statement. Both could fit the mission, but money, time, and resources are limited.
rory says:
jesus, david, jeff’s already stated opposition to shalit because of personal interactions. Sam’s mocked you the entire time, and i’ve already told ronit i don’t know enough about her to make a claim either way. smh.
Ronit says:
@Jr. Mom: Shalit’s publishing record deals in part with the exclusion of students (particularly female students) who don’t feel comfortable participating in the hook-up culture on campus. I hardly think those students are guilty of judging others simply because they feel excluded by a campus culture that extols drunken hook-ups over more lasting and committed types of relationships between the sexes. Shalit seems to be encouraging students with “traditional” views to hold onto their values and to not feel pressured into participating in a culture that is dehumanizing.
Also, if it’s okay for socially liberal individuals to proselytize their values, then surely it’s okay for a socially conservative individuals to do the same.
David says:
Jr. Mom writes:
Of course! The very worse sin that a Williams student could be accused of is “making judgments on the behavior of others.” Can’t have that!
Recall Magby’s claim:
Mocking someone’s religion is every bit as gauche as mocking their race, gender or sexuality. Surely, we can all agree on that?
JeffZ says:
I guess David is right. Suffer the poor, poor, pitiful rich oppressed white christian males who have suffered so much and have no one to speak on their behalf!!! How do they
David, if I could demonstrate that, say, 20 percent of the Williams campus was indeed racist, or believed that women should not have jobs other than homemaker, or some other such belief, would you THEN encourage the college to invite a racist or sexist to represent their views on campus? Why can’t we have someone, who, I don’t know, talks about religion on campus WITHOUT a primary focus on demonizing a minority group at Williams? I bet, for example, that the current chaplain at William could provide a thoughtful discussion of religion on campus life. And on one would object to him/her speaking. I know Rabbi Scherr and he is an incredibly thoughtful guy who I bet would also be a great speaker about religious values in campus life.
Again, David, I think there could conceivably be speakers who are not racist, sexist, or homophobic who can address issues related to religion on campus. You, apparently, do not.
Ronit says:
@rory: Shalit is not Christian.
Ronit says:
@JeffZ: Most of the actively religious Christians I knew at Williams were far from rich (if anything, religious participation in American society is inversely correlated with economic class), and many of them, including some of the most active leaders of groups like Newman, were non-white. I don’t think David’s argument is in any way about “rich white Christians”.
JeffZ says:
As for Wendy, Rory basically said it. I have no problem with her views about campus culture generally or inviting someone with her sets of views to speak on campus. I think that because of her abilily / interest (or general lack thereof, although this view is dated so perhaps she has changed in this regard) to address those with different views, she would not be the ideal speaker for this type of forum. But this has nothing to do with her general views / writings on campus culture, hook-ups, women’s issues, or whatever else. Jackson as I’ve explained in exhaustive detail presents an entirely different set of issues. Again, David thinks it is OK to invite racists, sexists, homophobes, or whatnot to campus so long as they have a sufficient group of a like-minded people on campus to address. I disagree.
rory says:
@Ronit: see, I told you i don’t know much about her! :p
JeffZ says:
Mocking someone’s religion is gauche. I agree David. Unlike you, I would NOT invite someone to Claiming Williams whose primary agenda was the exclusion of Christians from the Williams campus or from civic life, generally. But according to you, because that person expressed an, albeit unpopular and provocative, view that some on campus may conceivably hold, they would bring a valuable perspective to Claiming Williams. I disagree.
ephling says:
“(if anything, religious participation in American society is inversely correlated with economic class)”
Award: silliest comment I have ever seen on ephblog.
JeffZ says:
Oh, and DK, see how annoying it is when someone takes your viewpoint to a logical conclusion and assigns a view to you that you don’t actually endorse? (Or maybe in this case one that you do endorse, since you seem to value “uncomfortable learning” over any other possible civic value; for all I know, you’d love to see racists, sexists, anti-Christians, religious fundementalists, those crazy black jew metro guys, Nation of Islam people, NAMBLA members, animal rights activists, and Glenn Beck all converge on campus for a mutual hate-fest, all in the service of uncomfortable learning).
JeffZ says:
Ephling, I have no idea as to the underlying truth of Ronit’s correlative claim, but you clearly have not been reading Ephblog long — there are MANY, MANY more worthy contenders, believe me :).
Derek says:
You know, here is the other aspect of all of this: Some views are simply wrong. I don’t disagree with, say, KC Johnson’s views on diversity because he is conservative, liberal, or independent. I disagree with (many of) them because the history of this country has consistently been one of exclusion. Exclusion of blacks and Hispanics and women, exclusion of gays and Jews and the poor, exclusion of, at various times, Italians and Irish and Polish. And so for me an event such as “Claiming Williams” presumably makes no claims to believe all voices on this particular issue are equally valid. Because they are not.
If the bigotry brigade wants to have their own damned event opposing the rights of gays, embracing admissions policies that would ultimately limit the number of blacks and Hispanics at Williams, and advocating that someone else should tell women who they should hook up with and under what circumstances (because the Victorian Era was such a good one for the ladies) let them go ahead. But my Williams is choosing to go the other way. My Williams happens to be gloriously right on these issues. All are allowed to have their opinions. But don’t confuse the right to have any damned fool opinion one wants with the foolish proposition that all opinions are equally valid. They are not.
dcat
Ronit says:
@Derek: Lovely demonstration of the spirit of inclusiveness! Women who dislike the hook up culture are “simply wrong”!
Ronit says:
Meaningless sex = gloriously right! If you disagree, you’re a damned fool!
JG says:
@Ronit: Wow, yeah, that’s exactly what Derek was saying. I’m sure you could be more intellectually dishonest Ronit, but it would be hard.
As a woman who went to Williams and was actively involved for 80% of my time there with a religious student group and was not a fan of the “hook up” culture, I’ll tell you that I find Wendy Shalit and her generalizations about the prevailing attitudes of women at Williams to be wrong and insulting. It is not a newsflash that hook up culture isn’t empowering for men or women. She has a schtick that she sells, and she sells well to a group of people who want to believe her proposition. I never, literally NEVER say anyone made fun of for NOT having casual sex. Seriously. Who the f*** does that? Do people have casual sex, sure. Do people talking about doing so, sure. But I saw far, far, far more people (mostly women) get called sluts or something else for hooking up a lot. This is also not new. Not earth shattering. I find Wendy Shalit annoying and reductive. And the Victorian era was NOT good for women on the whole. Sorry. That is fact not opinion.
Jr. Mom says:
@ 68 Ronit:
My comment wasn’t pointed at you or at Shalit. It was in response to David’s use of “traditional” in comment #54.
And what I said about judging others has mostly to do with the kind of action that results in real attempts to inhibit their individual rights, again, not specifically to do with Shalit.
I have nothing against your crusade for Shalit. I will say I was completely unimpressed with the content and manner of her presentation. But then again, I have only seen the link that appeared here on EB.
Derek says:
A reading comprehension lesson for Ronit:
Here is what I wrote regarding the “hook up culture” question, as part of a longer sentence: “advocating that someone else should tell women who they should hook up with and under what circumstances”.
Here is what you drew from that: “Women who dislike the hook up culture are “simply wrong”! ”
Now, I don’t even think it is a matter of parsing to say that you clearly and completely either did not grasp what I wrote, or that you don’t care and chose to misrepresent it. Neither, frankly, would shock me.
What I quite clearly wrote is that no one has the right to tell other women who they should hook up with. No one. Wendy Shalit’s decision to condemn other women, adults, I might add, for decisions they make of their own free will is completely, utterly, absolutely wrong. Yes. I stand by that. If it is a reflection on MY sense of inclusiveness that sanctimonious adults don’t get to tell other adults what they can do within the boundaries of the law, color me not inclusive. But that’s a pretty tortured reading of inclusiveness.
Your followup post was even dumber and even less intellectually honest, if such a thing is possible.
So Ronit: A) Just Dumb? B) Just a liar? C) Both?
Trick question! The answer was D: Not worth distinguishing. But I do guess that obfuscating and misleading is easier than engaging with what I actually wrote.
But seriously: Are there actually people on this list who think they have the right to tell other adults how to lead their lives?
dcat
Ronit says:
@ephling: Since the Census Bureau doesn’t collect data on religious attendance, you’ll have to run the scatter plot yourself using publicly available Gallup data on church attendance by state and income data by state from the Census Bureau. The correlation there is highly obviouis. The Pew Survey doesn’t give the answer directly, but it has data on the sizes of various denominations, attendance, and then on the income composition of each denomination. Should be easy enough to put two and two together.
@JG: Do you or Derek have any publishing track record or post-graduate degrees in human sexuality (EDIT: or the Victorian era)? If not, I’m afraid you’re not qualified to comment on this issue, according to Derek’s Rules of Internet Argumentation.
ephling says:
o⋅pin⋅ion /əˈpɪnyən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
Use opinion in a Sentence
See web results for opinion
See images of opinion
–noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
An opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with evidence, but which cannot be proved with that evidence. It is normally a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts.
By these definitions all opinions are equal. Maybe another word would convey your point better.
JeffZ says:
If not having casual sex at Williams was indeed a subject of mockery / exclusion, my undergraduate years (alas) would have been a lonely time indeed …
Ronit says:
It would seem that this stance, if consistently held, would put anyone who has a strong view, one way or the other, about sexual relationships, whether they be feminists or counter-feminists or anything else, beyond the pale of decent debate. Is criticism and debate about sexual culture off limits now?
I’m sure you’ll now resort to some special pleading that puts Shalit’s views in particular beyond the pale, but makes room for more “sex-positive” feminists, or even just regular feminists who have a strong opinion about sexuality, but don’t have Shalit’s socially conservative sympathies.
(you do realize that Shalit was basically criticizing an entire culture, and that her life’s work does not consist of going into individual dorm rooms and breaking up hook up sessions, right?)
JG says:
@Ronit: I’m going to claim my girlie parts as sufficient expertise. But alas, I guess I don’t have a framed document on the wall attesting to their existence so you may have to take me at my word.
JeffZ says:
Ronit, ummmm, actually, the REAL reason I disagree so vehemently with Wendy: January 18, 1995, Pratt Dormitory, Zeeman’s about to score with a hot frosh impressed by his witty remark at that night’s College Council meeting, when BOOM, my door comes crashing down, and there stands a smirking Wendy Shalit, and with that, my dreams of ever getting action are flummoxed once more …
Ronit says:
@JeffZ: @JG: Thanks, I laughed at that.
kthomas says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxa
Vicarious'83 says:
@JeffZ:
JeffZ, in honor of one of the funniest things ever written on EphBolg, I hereby declare you Ephblog’s Libido Professor of Uncomfortable Yearning entitled to all the rights, honors, privileges and ice you can chew.
Jr. Mom says:
@Vicarious’83:
Good Lord, but you are one clever, funny Eph. You and Jeff are a formidable team. Please come around more often.
JeffZ says:
I am honored indeed to be so recognized.