Choice and Free Thought on College Campuses
Ilan Wurman
Last Updated: 10/30/08 Section: Editorial
One can certainly make an argument for divestment from companies that do business with Iran, North Korea or Sudan on national security and moral grounds; but the slope is inevitably slippery. Does divesting from those countries mean that students should push for a divestment from Israel, which is more often than not the target of the liberal academy and its student devotees' prejudices? Genocide and national security concerns tend to be black and white, though even they must be carefully evaluated; beyond those relatively clear-cut issues, however, divestment should be used sparingly if at all.
Because these matters go to the very heart and purpose of a college and student freedom, it is worth mentioning a recent, seemingly unrelated "bias-related incident." The incident refers to a student at Pomona on whose dry erase board someone continuously wrote a homophobic slur. Students from the Queer Resource Center (QRC) and the Queer, Questioning and Allied Mentor Program (QQAMP) sent out an email to all HMC students about their disappointment in the administrations' responses. It was not merely a "bias-related incident," they wrote in the email; rather, they said, "we would like to take this issue a step further and ensure that hate crimes such as this provokes a response greater than simply an email from our administration." These students wanted to "encourage a community-wide response."
The aims of these groups are commendable. No students should have to suffer the kind of harassment they are working hard to prevent, and a community response should be encouraged. But to be taken seriously, we should all be wary of using the term "hate crime" to describe such incidents. There is of course an inherent unfairness in labeling certain groups more worthy of protection than others, but the issue is more fundamental: it is not the college's role to dictate the thoughts of students. The university should impart knowledge and truth to its students through philosophical discourse and reasoning, but it should not police their thoughts.
Because these matters go to the very heart and purpose of a college and student freedom, it is worth mentioning a recent, seemingly unrelated "bias-related incident." The incident refers to a student at Pomona on whose dry erase board someone continuously wrote a homophobic slur. Students from the Queer Resource Center (QRC) and the Queer, Questioning and Allied Mentor Program (QQAMP) sent out an email to all HMC students about their disappointment in the administrations' responses. It was not merely a "bias-related incident," they wrote in the email; rather, they said, "we would like to take this issue a step further and ensure that hate crimes such as this provokes a response greater than simply an email from our administration." These students wanted to "encourage a community-wide response."
The aims of these groups are commendable. No students should have to suffer the kind of harassment they are working hard to prevent, and a community response should be encouraged. But to be taken seriously, we should all be wary of using the term "hate crime" to describe such incidents. There is of course an inherent unfairness in labeling certain groups more worthy of protection than others, but the issue is more fundamental: it is not the college's role to dictate the thoughts of students. The university should impart knowledge and truth to its students through philosophical discourse and reasoning, but it should not police their thoughts.
Be the first to comment on this story