Williams students revoke invitation to speaker who criticizes feminism

Smart Title: 

Alumni fund speakers who represent views that may make students uncomfortable. Did Suzanne Venker fit that category too well?

Student activists spur sexual assault complaints, but some say Education Department is overstepping its bounds

Smart Title: 

Student activists have shined a national spotlight on sexual assault on campuses, but others are encouraging colleges to fight back against federal rules they say are overreaching.

Students question whether canceling classes helps address social justice issues

Smart Title: 

Dartmouth and Oberlin canceled classes to address controversial speech and racism with a day of forums. Some students and others question whether approach is appropriate or effective.

As allegations fly, Amherst College tries to counter sexual assault issues

Smart Title: 

An account of a rape at Amherst, and of the way officials there didn't provide support, leads others to come forward -- and the college to try to fix what's broken.

Colleges help students deal with state voter ID laws

Smart Title: 

With the election approaching, colleges in states with strict voter ID laws are doing what they can to get students the information they need.

Student protests raise philosophical and practical issues

Smart Title: 

Student protests of Chick-fil-A are similar to previous movements against campus vendors, but have taken off with greater speed.

As campus protests continue, Princeton becomes flashpoint with debate over Woodrow Wilson

Smart Title: 

Princeton becomes flash point in campus protests as students demand end to links to Woodrow Wilson. The same day, institution ends the use of "master" to describe leaders of residential colleges.

How to set appropriate boundaries for media access to the campus (essay)

What access rights do the news media have on campuses?

The clash between news reporters, protesters and faculty at the University of Missouri has sparked a dialogue about First Amendment rights, media coverage of protest and why protesters might not want the news media in their midst.

Not surprisingly, the news media are reporting the incident as a violation of freedom of the press, and they may be right. But there are boundaries when it comes to media access on campus, and it's worth discussing them.

Years ago when I was an administrator at the University of Michigan, we had a horrific incident in which a student living in graduate student housing was stabbed to death by her live-in boyfriend. The assailant followed her out of the apartment and finished his attack outside in the yard in full view of the residents, many of whom had families with children. The sensational nature of the crime led to an embankment of satellite trucks, cameras and reporters in the grassy area outside the apartments, many of whom shone lights on and took up camera angles that looked right into the apartment windows of nearby residents.

We did not feel we could remove them because this was a major news story and because Michigan is a public university. But after the disaster was over, we began to question our decision making. Was it really reasonable to allow families to have their homes intruded on in this way? Could we not set reasonable and respectful boundaries?

I remember another circumstance when, after the Sept. 11 attacks, students were holding a candlelight vigil to grieve and express their sorrow. That created powerful visuals for the media, who again showed up in droves. The cameras sometimes positioned themselves inches from a crying student's face. Purely on compassionate grounds, that would seem to be an unreasonable invasion of privacy. But where to draw the line? Would it be OK for cameras to record the vigil but from a reasonable distance? How much personal space is sufficient?

Yet another ambiguous circumstance occurs when student reporters have access to potential sources in situations that are normally shielded from the media. Is it OK for student reporters to interview students in their dorm who are grieving over a fellow student who has died? Can they take pictures for publication in spaces that are normally off-limits to the public?

For public institutions funded by taxpayers, the presumption should be for access. But, even there, limits can be set. Conversely, private institutions have more latitude to restrict media access, but it is not always in their best interest to exercise that right. Many private colleges have a "public square" space where events and protests more frequently occur, and they often grant journalists broader access to those spaces than to private campus buildings.

In the aftermath of the stabbing death at Michigan, a group of us who worked at the university got together to create some clear policies around media access. We consulted many experts, including lawyers and those who advise the student media. In the end, we formalized and disseminated a set of guidelines that could help everyone make better decisions, rather than acting in the heat of the moment.

We shared the guidelines with media outlets regularly covered the university, including the student newspaper. We educated student groups that might be in the news about both access and boundaries. And when we knew big events were coming up that would attract media (such as the Sept. 11 vigil), we reached out in advance to remind reporters of our policies. All of this proactive work led both to more access when it was warranted and to better adherence by the media to reasonable boundaries.

Michigan's guidelines have been updated periodically over the years, but the core ideas have remained consistent. The presumption is for access, and the university typically allows all media such access in outdoor campus spaces and inside events that are open to the public.

However, some clear exceptions are spelled out. Among other situations, media access may be limited in:

  • Clinical or waiting areas where counseling or medical care is being provided, in order to protect patient privacy
  • Student housing areas including courtyards, lounges and other places where people may have a reasonable expectation of privacy
  • Classrooms when class is in session
  • Libraries, museums and other areas where quiet study is enforced or collections may be damaged by media equipment
  • Research labs
  • Private functions that are by invitation only
  • Active crime scenes or areas deemed to be unsafe (such as after a fire or earthquake).

If your campus has not created such guidelines, I encourage you to do so and to consult widely, using this as an opportunity to have a thoughtful conversation about your college or university’s particular culture, values and reasonable boundaries. It is more helpful to have the discussion before you are in the midst of an incident where emotions are running high and people may act without thinking.

In addition, I recommend that campuses provide guidance to student groups and their advisers about interacting with the media. You can use development of media access policies as a hook for a discussion with students.

You can also watch for student groups that emerge in the news and get to them early in the cycle with expert counsel and an offer of support. During my time at Michigan, we frequently did this through a close partnership between the communications office and student affairs.

All of this proactive work will help you get through the moments when your campus is suddenly thrust into the spotlight. By the time the satellite trucks show up, it may be too late.

Julie Peterson is a consultant focused on strategic communication and leadership development in higher education. She previously served as vice president for communications at the University of Chicago and in a variety of leadership roles at the University of Michigan.

Editorial Tags: 

Mizzou protests are a pro-democracy movement (essay)

This past Friday morning on Facebook, an English professor at the University of Missouri and former doctoral student of mine, John Evelev, made what he says will be his last post about the protests against racism at the University of Missouri. Those protests culminated in the resignation of the system president and the Columbia campus chancellor -- and then led to a horrible number of overtly racist counterprotests and threats of violence against black students, faculty members and even ROTC members.

Evelev has written before about the climate of racism that the students detected and that now pervades the campus. In this post, he extrapolates from their concerns and their protests about racism to the very idea of protest itself, to the concept of participation and civic action in a democracy.

What Evelev wrote is so important to the future of democracy and of higher education that everyone needs to take it in. He has given me permission to quote him here: “While most people see this as simply or exclusively a protest against racism, the proper way to see this is as a pro-democracy movement. Universities and public universities in particular used to be democratic spaces, spaces of civic representation in American life. Faced with decreased public funding, they are being run more like businesses with leaders who are unresponsive or downright dismissive of students and faculty. The student protesters, along with the faculty and administrators who worked to remove Tim Wolfe, UM system president, and R. Bowen Loftin, the chancellor of the Columbia campus, were not just fighting racism, but fighting for university leadership that was democratic, responsive to the community, that recognized the university is not just an institution with a really bad profit stream. It is easy enough for the right-wing to dismiss the goals of the students as ‘getting rid of racism,’ but what they really don't want is an American population that actually seeks representation in their institutions, whether education or political. If faculty want shared governance, they are ‘living in an ivory tower.’ We should all want more involvement, more stake-ownership in the important public institutions of our society, not less.”

The students were protesting against racism, a climate of racism, and specific racist acts. They were also protesting against being silenced, being rendered invisible -- which, of course, is one of the most devastating, debilitating and definitional features of racism. The students were also advocating for the ability to have a voice, to make oneself heard. If anyone is silenced in a democracy, we no longer have democracy. That is true particularly of race, especially at this historical moment, as these students have shown us.

It is also true about democracy in general. What I believe John Evelev is saying here is that, in their protest, these students represent the highest aspirations of all education, higher education and public education. Indeed, they represent, as he so beautifully states it, the aspirations of a public in democracy itself.

We have seen so many attempts to suppress democracy and participation in public life -- from voting rights being curtailed to Supreme Court rulings making corporations into “people,” thus allowing businesses and the vastly wealthy to have inordinate power in shaping democracy. President Jimmy Carter has said we are no longer a democracy but an oligarchy, and many social scientists have said that, by definition, he is correct. Is this the society we want?

We cannot, as a nation, allow this to happen. We must reverse this terrible tendency. And the university is the place where this re-energizing of an idea of a “public” must begin. The university is where young people who are minors learn to become full active adults. If universities were only about vocational training, learning how to participate in a democracy would be a secondary factor. And for the vast numbers of full adults returning for skills redevelopment, this certainly may be true.

But we in America have opted to make higher education the place where we send those who are just reaching their majority: these are our children, our nation's future. And we hope that, when they graduate, they will not only know more about a subject, field, discipline and vocation. We also hope and believe that they will be ready to be fully responsible adults, productive members of a society.

In a democracy, that means participation. That means standing up for one's beliefs -- in a way that is civil, responsible, meaningful and true. That means learning to think clearly and articulate one's ideas. It means being able to write eloquently and express one's opinions persuasively. It means knowing not just a subject matter but why that subject matters in the world.

And sometimes it means protests -- especially when an open car, in which the president of your university rides, drives into a stadium in an official capacity and moves forward into a group of protesters, possibly even, according to one accusation, clipping one. Throughout this, the president sits in the car silently. These are his students, at his university. And they are black students. In Missouri, a state already riven by the racial incidents in Ferguson.

There is a lot of talk about whether or not the president should have resigned. It is his prerogative to resign. No one forced that decision. I don't know enough to comment.

What I do know for sure, about any university president, is that he or she must set the moral compass of the institution. Silence, in the car and in the aftermath, is not setting an example, is not modeling public discourse, is not addressing a problem. In view of that, it is not a surprise that Wolfe resigned. Not because of protesters, but because their protest threw into such vivid light what he himself had not addressed for over a month of a silence.

He isn't just anyone. He is the president, the leader. His actions and his words represent the university. He embodies, in actual and symbolic power, what higher education and democracy are for.

Was he afraid to speak? We don't know.

In some ways, the resignation is as baffling as the silence leading up to it. Open, public, intelligent discourse -- from the beginning and with wise and attentive and concerned leadership of the president -- might have been far better for everyone. Now two senior leaders will be replaced with two other senior leaders. What does that solve? Replacing one president with another does not change the conditions of the university. Replacing one administrator with another does not redress the problem of racism.

Leadership change changes leadership. Period. Open, strategic, participatory democratic attention is required to identify, address and solve a systemic problem. Change will only happen if whoever comes into the positions is committed to a better way. Such commitment is hardly a foregone conclusion.

That leads to a larger issue, one that Evelev is pointing to because it is a condition of higher education throughout the United States now. University presidents everywhere are under tremendous pressures these days, especially at public universities, to speak certain kinds of carefully guarded and protective and screened truths or be faced with trustees who want their resignation. More and more presidents are being chosen by such boards, sometimes without real support from the faculty members, students, staff, alumni or other administrators. The case of the University of Iowa is especially pertinent here.

But it is a pattern, an alarming one. President after president is being pressured to respond to politics, not to the mission and the calling of higher education. And I don't mean the small-p politics of student protests but the larger party politics of governors, trustees and funders who have ideological motivations and corporate ones, too.

Higher education must be about the free circulation of ideas, about genuine and responsible expression of ideas, about public discourse at its highest and its most urgent, about debate and dissent conducted in public as well. If there is no room for democratic discourse at a university, then our society is, quite simply, sunk.

Indeed, since John Evelev’s original Facebook posting, the terrible violence in Paris has given new meaning to the call for sane, rational, informed discourse in a democratic society. Innocent people have been murdered. And one reason they have been murdered is because terrorists do not want sane, democratic discourse. They seek to feed blind, uninformed panic. Such panic can lead to retribution not just against the guilty (who deserve it) but also against innocent people who can seem (to outsiders) to share characteristics of ethnicity, race or immigrant status with the perpetrators of violence.

Feeding a cycle of unthinking blame laid against the innocent is exactly what terrorists want. We are hearing far too much of this xenophobia already in the tragic response to a terrible tragedy.

And that brings us back, again, to the issue of racism. Attributing guilt to an entire group is, of course, one attribute of racism.

We have bequeathed to this generation the legacy of a frightening, complex world where the solutions are as difficult to understand as the problems. It will be their job, in the future, to solve these problems. There is no more profound mission of the university than to help prepare them for a future where informed democratic discourse and deep and substantive critical thinking are in constant danger of being drowned out by the forces of ignorance, prejudice and violence. It is a formidable challenge. The least we can do is respect the seriousness of the struggle.

Cathy N. Davidson is a distinguished professor and director of the Futures Initiative at the City University of New York's Graduate Center.

Editorial Tags: 

Colleges should teach students to engage in real dialogue (essay)

We talk, we text, we tweet. And that’s fine. We needn’t require ourselves to think deeply at all hours, in all weather. Some things just don’t need the time, space and gravity we associate with such terms as “discourse,” “debate” and “dialogue.”

But many things do. And one of the dangers for a society that gets too used to the frenetic and featherweight -- and to media tailored to delivering little else -- is that when a real issue comes along, with conflicting ideas and multiple facets, and complexity and weight and much in the balance, we simply have no way to discuss it.

Think immigration in Arizona, justice in Ferguson, religious freedom in Indiana, water wars in California, Confederate iconography in the South, sexual assault on college campuses.

And, importantly, issues like these don’t “come along.” They’re always with us, constantly testing us, and our decisions about them matter. They determine what lives we lead, and what world we’ll leave behind.

So it makes a difference that discourse today, when it happens at all, is often rife with personality, politics, opinion and noise but short on facts -- much less analysis and insight.

This predicament touches on a counterintuitive point that goes to the heart of the problem: facts are not enough. Daniel Moynihan’s eminently quotable “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts” is true enough as far as it goes. But simply memorizing those facts, then trading them with people who already agree with you, advances no argument and makes no decision easier or wiser.

To argue in the sense of debate, to hold a constructive, reasoned conversation with the potential to change minds, we first have to engage the minds we would change: our own as well as others’. Students don’t necessarily arrive at college with the skills to do that, unfortunately, and it’s no wonder. Our digital bubbles and the social media hall of mirrors make it possible to seem connected to every person alive, discussing every topic under the sun, when in truth we’re often engaging merely with enclaves of the like-minded.

A hall of mirrors doesn’t add perspectives, it only multiplies your own; its depth is all pretense.

This is a major paradox of our time. Think, for example, of the heyday of broadcast TV, when news networks numbered exactly three and were indisputably more homogenous than today. And yet they routinely offered opposing points of view. Today our options for news and views have grown exponentially, but paradoxically so too have our tools for sorting ourselves into virtual silos. Two points of view are rarely sufficient in any case, as almost nothing worth arguing about has just two sides. But now, with 1,000 channels and countless blogs that double as echo chambers, we don’t have to listen to even that many.

And while real debate would doubtlessly improve our current landscape, perhaps “dialogue” is the best word for what is most needed today, and always. For true dialogue, two things are required, besides the will to think for oneself rather than accept some authority’s shrink-wrapped opinion package.

The first is to find a sense in which we’re in it together. “We” can be students in a classroom, business competitors, House and Senate colleagues, or newly established neighborhood associations, but the default position has to be the same: if an “us vs. them” dynamic prevails, everybody loses.

In this way, dialogue is equally pledge as practice: it urges us to uphold a sense of community above all, no matter the size of the controversy or the intensity of the conflict. It’s more huddle, less face-off.

It’s also our best tool for delivering productive, civil and nuanced results from even the most passionate disagreements -- which, it’s worth pointing out, is not only inevitable but desirable in a place dedicated to the life of the mind.

Here higher education plays a role that can be easily obscured by the very proper focus on difference. College should most definitely put young people in touch with the vast variety of human thought and experience. But if we do it right, they should also have a growing appreciation for what unites us beneath our differences in color and country, class and gender, age and era: the reassuring bedrock of the genuine human needs, abilities, drives and virtues that we hold in common.

And let’s not pretend any of this is easily done or effortlessly taught. It takes considerable self-awareness, patience and discipline to contribute to such complex conversations, and it takes even more to lead them, to say nothing of the skills and wisdom needed to teach others to do the same. It should be the goal of every intellectual community to advance the depth, breadth and sustaining power of face-to-face dialogue.

The second requirement for true dialogue may be even more important. It depends on a mind-set that can be expressed in four words: I might be wrong.

“The spirit of liberty,” Judge Learned Hand famously said in a 1944 speech, “is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.” The rest of his sentence is less often quoted but equally pertinent: “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women … which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias.”

That’s a high bar for a species as tribal and fallible as ours, but it’s a worthy one. Truth be told, it’s the only way we’ll ever make progress in judging how best to live together, whether that means in colleges, communities or countries.

The best way to start clearing that bar?

Helping our young people to value reflection over reflexes, giving them effective ways to listen, think, converse and cooperate -- not offering them “cut flowers,” as the educational leader John Gardner once put it, but “teaching them to grow their own plants.”

Ryan Hays is executive vice president at the University of Cincinnati.

Editorial Tags: 


Subscribe to RSS - Activism
Back to Top