A most tragic disagreement

I took the time this past week to twice review the Community Forum on Race hosted by President Brodhead, Provost Kornbluth and Dean Ashby, as well as the subsequent “Demands of Black Voices” follow-up. The battle between students behind the demands and Duke administration has been a total embarrassment and betrayal to the University. Duke students have watched as both President Brodhead and the protestors toss fundamental academic values like facts, peaceful discourse and dissent out the window for politics.

Let’s begin with the protestors, whose tactics, portrayal of evidence and goals are all somewhere between problematic and unpalatable. On video, one can watch as protestor after protestor hisses demands and hurls insults at the President, Provost and Dean—often interrupting them, sarcastically showing them up and referring directly to them by last name only. In perhaps the most telling example of rudeness, the moderator of the “Demands of Black Voices” forum refused multiple times to allow President Brodhead the chance to engage the audience with a question he had. A more radical group, Duke Enrage, warns on their Tumblr page, “Remember, we hold power in this movement and we are here to use it. Expect us.” Both the Concerned Students and Duke Enrage protestors have clearly chosen the path of Malcolm X over that of Dr. King; remember, it was MLK who dreamed of change and Malcolm X who demanded it. This decision will prove disastrous for their cause—while bullying and intimidation excites the truest believes in their revolution, the Concerned Students have turned off many sympathizers from more moderate corners of the Duke community.

The second major issue with the Concerned Students movement is their continued insistence that the noose incident last spring demonstrates racial hatred on our campus. That week still plays back strongly: fear and confusion captured the campus, with many wondering why a Blue Devil would do something so hurtful. In subsequent months, federal investigators and Duke itself determined that “ignorance and bad judgment,” not racism, were the prime motivators behind the noose. I remember vividly the chill amongst some friends on that day; however, feelings, no matter how strong, do not entitle anyone to facts. Like in a courtroom, it’s crucial for people to turn the page on issues of intense passion and personal importance when the facts do not justify the allegation—for the Concerned Students, it is far past time to drop the noose as evidence in these race based conversations.

Lastly, it’s hard to even believe anymore that the goals of Concerned Students and Duke Enrage are to improve the campus for minority students. Instead, their goals seem to be a bizarre mix of socialistic nirvana and showing up the administration. Amongst the Concerned Students goals is unionization for faculty, increased wages for (specifically) “black and brown” labor, recognizing illegal DAPA and DACA aliens and a race-based quota system for faculty. They’ve also demanded that President Brodhead and other high level administrators sign specific documents admitting guilt to specific failures by specific times, or else. Duke Enrage goes further, publishing a document titled “To Hell With Your Taskforce!” that reads like a page straight out of Regina George’s “Burn Book.”

President Brodhead’s betrayal of academic values is more shrouded in his plump desire to do the politically convenient. In the videos of both forums, I couldn’t help but giggle as the President continuously repeated two key points (paraphrasing both). The first point he continually condescended to the Concerned Students was that (paraphrasing) “in academia, we don’t rush to judgment but rather take time to review the facts before making a decision.” This preach of patience comes from the same person who, during the Duke Lacrosse Scandal, infamously and incorrectly insinuated that the players were guilty of rape; prematurely fired coach Mike Pressler only to later have his own appointed committee reveal no wrongdoings by the coach; and, suspended a lacrosse player in two days without due process for a private, unrelated email parodying American Psycho. President Brodhead has shown that, when the wind blows, he’s as limp and flaccid as they come; he has no business lecturing the Concerned Students on patience under pressure.

The second point the President made in the forums is that (paraphrasing) “free speech is an absolute necessity in any faculty of higher learning.” A responsible statement when viewed in a vacuum, this is yet another example of the hypocrisy of our President. Late last spring, the esteemed James B. Duke Professor of Political Science Jerry Hough came under fire from campus and national liberal activists when he commented that his observation of more “American” names by Asian students versus the “strange” names of some of his black students suggests a greater desire for American assimilation amongst Asians than blacks. Hough’s comments also have a historical basis of truth—my relatives changed their names to be more “American” when they immigrated here, making integration easier. Whether you agree or disagree with Hough’s comments, they certainly are a legitimate critique at the intersection of linguistics, race and assimilation, deserving of academic debate. Not so, says President Brodhead; through University VP of Public Affairs Michael Schoenfeld, the Administration refused to defend Hough’s right to comment: “The comments were noxious, offensive and have no place in civil discourse.” These comments incited calls among some for “cultural re-education” and “sensitivity training” for Hough. Many students fear the day when we must be “re-educated” for having contentious thoughts that may make others feel uncomfortable. Here at Duke, it’s President Brodhead’s duty to sustain an environment inviting to discourse; we don’t have the confidence in his ability to do so.

The result of the past two weeks has set up a climactic battle for the soul of campus, and the stakes could not be higher: Free speech and the rights of individual students are at risk. Our campus, like others, has now become ground zero in the fight over free speech, and the issue will be at the forefront of both the Young Trustee and DSG Presidential elections next spring. If we truly yearn to be an institution of higher learning, we must be comfortable with different ideas and being offended. Going forward, I hope we promote an environment conducive to robust and sometimes contentious debate rather than the numbing sameness of politically neutral “speech.”

Max Schreiber is a Pratt senior. His column runs on alternate Tuesdays.