I’ve followed with great interest the reaction to Mr. Zach Goldstein’s Wespeak several weeks ago. There’s a simple issue at the heart of the controversy – whether or not a University can, or should, impose rules on its members, and in particular rules that govern behavior and speech.
What rules are we talking about? Professor Claire Potter proposes a simple rule for the campus to live by: “adults don’t insult each other, and each other’s family members, viciously …”. On the other hand, Mr. Mathieu Desan argues against the “rules of the game [where we] agree not to tear each other to shreds,” suggesting the rule always results in “student sublimation and subjugation.”
I’d like to pose a few simple questions to both Mr. Desan and Professor Potter, based on what they have written.
First, Mr. Desan. Are there any rules that you and your colleagues would agree should be imposed on the community? Would you, for example, agree to the limits on free speech that are imposed by the U.S. Constitution? Would you suggest that all words be protected but not physical actions? Would you agree to a rule that limited your physical actions to those that did not harm others, or would all physical actions be allowed? Would you and your colleagues agree to be bound by the laws of Connecticut?
Where, precisely, would you draw the line, Mr. Desan? Or would there be no line?
I’m not asking these questions to be flip. Rather, I’m encouraging your “side” to articulate what you stand for, not simply what you stand against. Lay out the principles that govern the world of Desan/Goldstein, and let the rest of us reflect on it to see if it’s a world in which we want to live.
Second, Professor Potter. You hit the nail on the head in your letter, of course – just the right mix of humanity and teaching, combined with a touch of common sense and decency. Other than defending Alan Dachs – I think he’s a knucklehead – I agreed with every word you wrote. Too bad Mr. Desan missed the point, and Mr. Goldstein failed to respond (at least publicly).
However, my questions to you are in some sense harsher than those posed to Mr. Desan above. What have you and your faculty colleagues been up to as the public debate at Wesleyan has eroded to such an extraordinary degree? Poor writing, nonexistent logic and ad hominum attacks have been a staple of the Argus’ Wespeaks and Letters to the Editor for some time now, and make us all look like – to borrow a phrase – “perfect idiots.” Going forward, what is the faculty doing to help students become adults, not just well-educated graduates; and what are you and your colleagues doing to shape the tone of the public debate?
And to Ms. Doro Globus, perhaps the most polite participant of us all in this debate and certainly the most well-meaning: please check the spelling in my Wespeak carefully, as that appears by your own admission to be your primary role. If you had a broader view of what an Editor does, perhaps we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place. (If you do decide to become more of an activist Editor – and based on your comments I think you’d make a good one – please do so only after you publish my Wespeak verbatim).
Leave a Reply