From Max Page's "Office Hours," Fall '95 From Max Page's "Office Hours," Fall '95I ran into an old friend of ours this past weekend. At a conference (where academics show off how good a time they can have sitting in windowless rooms for eight hours a day), I heard Sheldon Hackney, our dearly departed president, talk on the theme of "Pluralism and American Identity." The Penn graduate students and faculty in the audience had a wry sense of deja vu as we recalled the shredding of campus civility during the last years of his tenure. Water buffaloes, stolen DP's, racist columnists -- a series of events, and a series of missteps by the University, enflamed distrust within the University from which we are still recovering. As Hackney spoke, I could not help recalling my own reaction to the series of events that ruined Hackney's final year at Penn. The yearly fight over free speech at universities played itself out in the usual fashion at Penn in 1993: Civil libertarians and right-wing reactionaries jumped into bed together to protest the chilling of free speech, while minority leaders declared that the campus was racist and that speech codes had to be strengthened. In the middle was the University, led by Sheldon Hackney, typically trying to have it both ways: declaring free speech to be the core value of the institution but trying to punish students under an ever-more inane structure of speech regulations. At the heart of this debate were two different views of what a university is. Some believed that the university should be the ideal community, a place where toleration and respect extend to those denied it in the nation at large. Others insisted that the paramount value of the university is to be a place of totally free exchange of ideas, including those ideas which hurt. One of the few good products of that acrimonious debate was that a number of people asked important questions: Is there any way beyond this impasse? Is it possible for the university to allow truly open -- even painful -- debate yet promote a more tolerant, respectful community? Is it possible for universities to make these conflicts an opportunity for education rather than problems to be solved? At the time, it was clear to me that we needed more speech, not less. In long arguments with friends (including one marathon argument in a car that lasted from Charleston, S.C. to Maryland), I insisted that sharp dialogue, debate, people interrupting each other, a real airing of differences would help. In my classes I always tried desperately (and still do) to promote disagreement, debate, and yes, even anger. It amused me that some students called for more speech regulations which would "protect" them from hurtful speech. The First Amendment, I insisted, does not guarantee freedom from pain; it does guarantee a right to respond to hurtful speech. By promoting speech regulations, the University did damage to the values it touted so highly in its admissions literature and commencement speeches. But while I was instinctively repelled by any efforts to restrict speech, I was also surprised by the lack of concern civil libertarians displayed for the experience of minorities on campus. In their single-minded crusade to preserve the right to free expression, civil libertarians had little to say about students who feel surrounded by hostility. And neither did the University. It impotently played policeman to the debate, doing little more than enraging both sides. The most concrete solution to the "water buffalo" case was to offer a workshop on racism to the student Eden Jacobowitz as punishment. It was all ludicrous. At the time, I thought the University had a third, more productive option. In my kingdom, the University would eliminate its speech codes but would also actively promote its vision of a respectful, inclusive community through classes, workshops for incoming students, guest speakers and greater funding for minority newspapers and organizations. That way the University would live up to its founding belief in free exchange of ideas and its equally strong commitment to promoting values of respect and tolerance. The strategy of running from debate was cowardly and would not create the community the University espoused, but rather would submerge divisive issues and stifle intellectual discovery where it should have been most encouraged. Three years later, Sheldon Hackney is proposing just this, but now his audience is the whole nation. He is sure that these organized meetings will have a ripple-effect, setting off radiating circles of dialogue about American pluralism that will yield a new understanding of our "shared values" and help define our "national character," and chart our "common vision." Cathy Davidson, a professor at Duke who commented on Hackney's speech, eloquently asked whether the "common ground" that would result from the most productive of these "conversations" are really what we need. Our nation is not in the midst of a family squabble about "values" and "cultural misunderstandings," but rather is undergoing a fundamental reorganization of economic and political life that is produced by and will reinforce increasing racial and class divisions. We need a different kind of talk.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.
