Editor’s note: This commentary is by Tom Koch, who is a former member of the Vermont House of Representatives, serving 11 terms representing Barre Town. He is currently chair of the Barre Town Republican Committee.
[S]ince I retired from the Legislature in 2014, many people have urged me to continue to write “Scribblings,” the newsletter I wrote on an occasional basis for most of a decade. I have responded that the perspective of an outsider is very different from that of a sitting legislator, and without a particular event to prompt me to write again, it would be unlikely for me to write commentary again.
That event has now occurred, and it is not even a matter pending in the Legislature that prompts me to write this evening.
The events recently at my alma mater, Middlebury College, are disturbing, disheartening and disgusting. They show a blatant disrespect for persons, for our beloved tradition of free speech, and for the educational institution from which I proudly graduated more than 50 years ago. Some of the actions appear to be criminal in nature. Many others strike at the heart of a civilized polity by resorting to mob rule and depriving others of the right to listen to a speaker respectfully, even if in disagreement with that speaker.
I refer, of course, to the fact that Charles Murray, author of “The Bell Curve” and other books, was invited to speak at Middlebury by a conservative student organization and was co-sponsored by the political science department. Mr. Murray is a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, a reputable, highly conservative Washington think tank. Murray’s writings are no doubt controversial, and some have challenged his credentials and even suggested that he is a racist. Several members of the Middlebury community — both students and faculty members — protested the invitation and sought to have it canceled. However, in the interest of free speech and academic freedom, Middlebury President Laurie Patton defended the right of parts of the college community to issue the invitation, and she even introduced the guest, pleading for respect and tolerance, even while making it clear that she does not agree with Murray’s views.
All to naught. Mr. Murray was shouted down and could not be heard for half an hour. His presentation was moved to a separate room and live-streamed to the audience, where shouting and disconnection of electronics prevented the speaker from being heard. When Mr. Murray was finally escorted off campus, he and his faculty escort were assaulted, resulting in injury to the faculty member.
What have we come to?
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Middlebury students have attempted to dissuade the college from hearing a speaker with whom the students did not agree. Drowning out the speaker and violence were not part of the previous protest, but the idea of silencing speakers with an opposing view is antithetical to all that I learned as a political science major at Middlebury. On the occasion of the previous protests in 2009, I wrote an op-ed article that was published in numerous media outlets in Vermont. I think it is worth reproducing now. Here it is.
◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊
The Illiberalism of Liberals
[Y]ears ago, a liberal friend confided in me, “Liberals are very illiberal with non-liberals.” Unfortunately, over the years, I have found that to be true. Just examine a few recent events in our area.
Ann Veneman, executive director of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), was chosen as the commencement speaker at Middlebury College. American children have been collecting money at Halloween for over 50 years to support UNICEF, and the organization has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its humanitarian work. But because Ann Veneman had the temerity to serve as secretary of agriculture in the Bush administration before taking her UN post, our liberal friends think she has nothing worthwhile to say and objected to her selection as commencement speaker.
When Laura Bush came to Burlington recently, the obligatory picketers had to make their presence known, complete with obscenities and one person stepping into traffic. As a first lady notably separated from policy decisions, her only offense is her choice of a spouse, but how could a dedicated liberal demonstrator resist the opportunity to show that Vermont is not the “beckoning country” for conservatives?
Last week, a number of participants turned their backs on Gov. Jim Douglas as he spoke at a St. Michael’s College conference on “Creating a Welcoming Community.” His offense was vetoing a bill that would have outlawed discrimination against transgendered people, but which was so poorly worded that it had unintended consequences. Whether that bill should have been signed or vetoed is an appropriate subject for discussion, but standing and turning one’s back on the governor is mere insult, not discussion. The governor generously defended the protesters’ actions as free speech, but the distraction caused by their behavior no doubt interfered with other participants as they attempted to listen to the governor’s presentation.
Is there not an effort to restrict First Amendment rights? What, I wonder, would Thomas Jefferson and James Madison think?
And when National Intelligence Agency director John Negroponte, whose son was a graduating senior, spoke at the St. Johnsbury Academy commencement on Monday, several protesters could not resist interrupting the proceedings, despite prior agreements with police that demonstrations would take place only on the public sidewalk and not on academy property. Amid the yelling and the consequent arrests, the demonstrators’ precise message was lost, and what the graduates will most remember in future years is that their special day, which should have been one of honor and celebration, was uncivilly disrupted by outsiders.
Do you see a pattern here? Does there not seem to be a concerted effort to prevent any person with whom the liberal activists disagree from being heard in Vermont? Is there not an effort to restrict First Amendment rights? What, I wonder, would Thomas Jefferson and James Madison think?
The media, I submit, is complicit in this lowering of standards of civil discourse by their dutiful reporting of every protest, every demonstration, every disturbance. There seems to be little or no editorial judgment as to what is truly newsworthy, and the sure and certain knowledge that every demonstration will be prominently reported fuels the drive to protest every event and every speaker not aligned with the liberal agenda. Indeed, the media stooped so low as to become the publicist for the Negroponte protesters, reporting on the day before the ceremony that a protest organizer was asking “activists” from across the state to come to St. Johnsbury to join in the protest.
Some will cite the success of the civil rights demonstrations and the civil disobedience of the ‘50s and ‘60s in support of the present rash of protests. But there is no comparison between the overriding moral issue of the last two generations and the spewing of obscenities and hatred that mark the current “liberal” behavior. To equate the two does a disservice to the heroes and martyrs of the civil rights movement.
True liberalism is dedicated to a full and rational exchange of views in a mutually respectful manner. In the classical sense, liberals are centrists on the political spectrum, open to persuasion and seeking to persuade. They value the thoughts and policies advanced by persons both on their right and their left. They defend the right of every person, private citizen and public official, to speak freely, and they condemn any effort to restrict freedom of speech or to drown out others with shouting or vulgarity.
The intolerance and illiberal behavior of those who present themselves as modern liberals is a betrayal of true liberalism. Today’s liberals would do well to rededicate themselves to the defense of the right of every individual to speak and be heard in the public forum.
◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊
[C]harles Murray’s visit to Middlebury is history. It is a stain on the reputation of an outstanding educational institution, and it raises ominous red flags for the future.
One great danger is that no conservative speakers will be heard at Middlebury again for a very long time. In the first place, student organizations may be reluctant to invite guests who could possibly be exposed to protest, silencing and violence. Secondly, the administration may be reluctant to approve such speakers and risk further damage to the college’s reputation. And, of course, speakers may be fearful to accept invitations to “that college.” One might be excused for suspecting that such a result is exactly what this week’s protesters desire, but it is a result that absolutely must be avoided.
Middlebury College needs to take a stand. The college community needs to affirm unequivocally its dedication to free speech and a respectful exchange of ideas across the spectrum of thought and belief. And it needs to enforce that affirmation. Here are a few suggestions.
• Middlebury needs to adopt a code of conduct that requires respect for other views, attitudes and opinions; requires dissent to be respectful and non-violent; and affirms the ability of all persons to speak and be heard.
• As part of the admissions process, prospective students must be provided a copy of the code of conduct and required to subscribe to it. No agreement, no admission. And then, violations of the code of conduct must be enforced by appropriate disciplinary action.
• The college needs to make a deliberate effort to invite speakers holding views that span the spectrum. The “cold blanket” that demonstrators have thrown over the concept of a free exchange of ideas must be removed.
In no way should the noise and violence of the week just past be permitted to prevail over the long term. It is not an exaggeration to say that the future of civilization is at stake.