Letter to the Editor: Defining the principles that define us

I am writing this letter to the editor for three reasons. The first is to comment on a resolution passed this past Thursday by the SGA, the second is to comment on the way in which it was passed, and the third is to express a sentiment that I fear could be lost amongst the impassioned diatribe and discourse of the past few days.

To the first of my purposes, I am speaking in reference to CC 14-15 #22: Resolution for the Connecticut College Student Government Association to Demand an Administrative Response Condemning Dehumanizing, Racist, and Hateful Speech by Members of the Campus Community. This resolution was brought to the floor and passed in a single night, and before I address what I believe to be an irresponsible breach of protocol, I want to speak to resolution’s substance.

There has been much talk on campus recently about what exactly free speech constitutes on a campus like ours, about what exactly should and should not be protected, and about how we as a community and an institution should respond to incidents like the Facebook post by a professor here. On one side of this issue are those who demand an official condemnation from the administration of the kind of language which was used and which has so hurt members of our community. On the other side of this are those who believe that such an action would invariably diminish the ability of this campus community as a whole to engage in free speech. My own opinions are in line with the values of the latter.

This is not to say that I believe that those seeking an administrative condemnation in any way desire to abridge the right to free speech we all enjoy; far from it. Many have said themselves that condemnations of speech need not silence the voice of anyone involved. On this I agree in all cases except that of the greater institution.

When I (or any singular person) condemn the speech as hateful and racist, as I rightfully do, and when departments or other organizations on campus do, the condemnation does not carry with it the force to silence the voice of the condemned. We are each of us individuals operating beneath the umbrella of the institution we belong to, and as cohabitants cannot exert this kind of influence over each other. However if the institution itself condemns the speech, regardless of the intent behind such an action, the very dimensions of the community change. The effect would be a narrowing of the umbrella, a de facto suppression of thought. It becomes impossible to freely express an idea within a system that has openly disallowed it.

There are those who might say that, even with this being the case, the importance of an administrative condemnation here is paramount. To them I would say this: principles are hard. To maintain free speech in the face of such offensive and hurtful ideas is hard. But as hard as it may be, it is equally as necessary.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. is a personal hero of mine, and has been for many years. I doubt if most of you will recognize his name, but I think he and his words are worth knowing. Holmes was a Supreme Court Justice serving about 95 years ago. In case of Abrams v. United States, where two men were convicted under the Espionage Act of actively subverting the United States’ war effort during WWI through the distribution of leaflets with inflammatory writing, Justice Holmes wrote a dissenting opinion in defense of free speech so powerful that it resonates to this day:

“Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent… or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises…

But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas – that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.

That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.”

Justice Holmes is speaking about the country as a whole, and we here are merely concerned with the state of our campus community, but the same principles still do apply. The ideas expressed in the Facebook post have no power here, the last few days have made that abundantly clear. The market of ideas which is our campus has spoken resolutely and in unison to declare that we want to be a place of learning and acceptance, where people can do better than hate. This has happened, and will continue to happen, without the administrative condemnation that so many seek, and I think we should be proud of that.

The greater institution, as I see it, and as I hope that upon reading this you will at least consider it, has a responsibility to provide a forum for this discussion to take place, and any failure on its part to do so can be addressed as it arises. But it is not the institution’s task to steer that discussion in any direction, even we want it “with all our hearts.” It does us no good to demand otherwise.

Concerning my second stated purpose, with respect to the events surrounding the passage of this resolution, I want to say that it is my opinion that the principles of shared governance were done a disservice. I, as a house senator, am bound by my responsibility to bring before my residents each week the resolutions that are on the SGA floor. In doing so I receive feedback and can have productive discussions with my constituency regarding the substance of the resolutions.

CC 14-15 #22 was proposed, voted on, and passed in a single meeting, allowing none but those present in the room a chance to view and comment on the bill before it was voted upon. In doing so, I believe that my house, and all the other houses, were deprived of their rightful opportunity to see and comment on the affairs of their government. It makes no matter that, as some claimed, we might be able to guess at the disposition of the majority. I am prepared to vote for a resolution against my own convictions if my house has expressed a powerful desire for me to do so, if I have been able to engage with them regarding my own views and to hear theirs. I am not prepared to vote based on speculation as to what their desires are. This was a matter of due process. Though it may seem trite at times, parliamentary procedure serves a purpose, and abandoning it only hurts us all. One principle was sacrificed in pursuit of another, and in doing so we have netted nothing.

Lastly, I want to express a sentiment that I hope is strong enough to cut through the passions and disagreements that have shaken and continue to shake us. What I desire is no different from what the members of our community who have spoken out recently desire; what I feel is no different from what they feel. I am hurt to see my friends and peers hurt; I am angered to see them angered. I speak now, as they do, out of love for this community and what it can be. I differ from them only in how I seek to reach our destination, not in my view of the destination itself. A safe space is safest when it is made to be so by those who inhabit it, not by a narrowing of its boundaries.

Sincerely and respectfully,

Cory Scarola, 2016 •