I have been concerned lately about the lack of open debate and public conversation on college campuses.
All colleges and universities invite guest speakers to campus. At my college we do a fair job of inviting a range of voices. Some speakers come from within the Christian tradition and some come from outside of it. Some are liberal and some are conservative.
Liberal factions on college campuses bring in speakers who will attract liberal faculty and students. The speakers tell the audience what they want to hear and basically confirm the audience’s already held convictions. Everyone oohs and ahhs for 45 minutes. Then, when the applause is over, they loft “softball” questions that the speaker can easily hit out of the park. After the lecture they talk about the speaker for days, hoping that the college as a whole will take note of what he or she said and start to enact meaningful change along the lines that the speaker has proposed.
And then the next week a conservative speaker comes to campus and the same thing happens all over again. Very few of the faculty and students who were present for the liberal lecture show up for this lecture. The speaker expounds upon her or his conservative values and everyone leaves feeling pretty good about themselves. Then comes the usual post-lecture swoon.
Rarely is there a conservative response at the liberal lecture or a liberal response at a conservative lecture. I imagine that sometimes people worry about this kind of intellectual exchange becoming too contentious. (This is certainly an issue at my college where Christian peace and the absence of conflict stem from the school’s Anabaptist heritage). Yet such arguments, when conducted civilly, contribute to the educational and intellectual culture of our campuses. Rarely do our students see two intellectuals with different ideas engaged in conversation over things that matter.
Last week I was up in Wenham, Massachusetts to deliver the Gordon College Franz Lecture. My topic was “Why Study History?,” so I used my time to talk a little bit about the ongoing problems that I see with American democracy. (Readers of The Way of Improvement Leads Home or Why Study History? have heard or read this before).
Here is a small part of my talk:
And what is happening to the state of democratic conversation? Public argument and debate over the critical issues of the day too often takes place in 30-second sound bites between talking heads on cable news. This sound-bite culture makes it difficult to fully engage with and even understand the viewpoints of those neighbors with whom we disagree. Cable news encourages a kind of passive approach to public life. Rather than engaging in civil conversation, we sit on our couches or in front of our screens and merely consume it all. This is not citizenship.
As the late historian and cultural critic Christopher Lasch has written:
“The attempt to bring others around to our point of view carries the risk, of course, that we may adopt their point of view instead. We have to enter imaginatively into our opponent’s arguments, if only for the purpose of refuting them, and we may end up being persuaded by those we sought to persuade. Argument is risky and unpredictable, therefore educational. Most of us tend to think of it….as a clash of dogmas, a shouting match in which neither side gives any ground. But arguments are not won by shouting down opponents. They are won by changing opponents minds—something that can only happen if we give opposing arguments a respectful hearing and still persuade their advocates that there is something wrong with those arguments. In the course of this activity, we may well decide that there is something wrong with our own.”
I was thus encouraged when I recently read about a week of lectures and conversations at the University of St. Thomas, a Catholic liberal arts college in Minnesota.
Here is a taste of University of St. Thomas theologian Michael Hollerich‘s description of the event at the website of Commonweal
Then on Friday, St. Thomas’s Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy hosted a conversation between Cornel West and New York Times columnist Ross Douthat on “Christianity and Politics in the U.S. Today.” A cynic might have derided this as a celebrity event. It was much better than that, and the planners deserve warm congratulations for pulling off a remarkable success. The Murphy Institute is named for the late Msgr. Terrence Murphy (d. 2004), for over thirty-five years the university’s president and chancellor, and sometimes referred to as St. Thomas’s Fr. Hesburgh. The institute is jointly administered by the university’s Center for Catholic Studies and the law school. Apart from its legal-education programs, for much of its twenty-year history the institute stuck to topics and speakers from the conservative end of the Catholic spectrum. The last few years it has been braver about going outside the usual suspects. A good example is the seminar led by German sociologist Hans Joas on his 2013 book The Sacredness of the Person, which draws on American pragmatism and German historicism for a new genealogy of human rights.
Cornel West was a reach well beyond that. I am not privy to whatever dealing brought him and Ross Douthat, a very public Catholic conservative, to our campus. It turned out to be an inspired match. Anyone who expected Crossfire-style vituperation would have been disappointed. West, who looks like an aging Frederick Douglass in cufflinks, was funny, powerful, and lightning quick on his feet, with a daunting expressive range and a limitless supply of intellectual and cultural allusions. He played his audience like a maestro conducting an orchestra. Douthat was the real surprise. His journalism didn’t prepare me for his self-deprecating humor and charm. There wasn’t a trace of the sometimes-churlish voice of the columnist. West’s booming greeting to “Brother Ross” set the tone. Douthat also showed impressive self-possession in not being bowled over by West’s bombast. He seemed mostly willing to play the straight man to West’s shtick (did he have a choice?), while slipping in his own sly cracks. The humor and the moral and intellectual passion were infectious. Who expected a spirited detour on John Dewey (Douthat called him an aggressive secularizer and a defender of amoral instrumental reason; West said his love of democracy was mystical and almost religious)? Or Cornel West invoking “Gilbert Keith Chesterton”? It helped that they shared a common contempt for Donald Trump (and possibly Hillary Clinton as well). On Trump, Douthat was unsparing—when I referred above to Trump’s “racialized politics,” I was borrowing Douthat’s phrase.
Read the rest here. We need more events like this on our campuses for the purpose of modeling conversation and intellectual exchange about important matters.