This letter is written in the spirit of President Dye's open letter to the Oberlin community concerning Kwame Ture's recent visit to Oberlin. In her letter, President Dye observed that freedom of speech, on the one hand, and respect and tolerance, on the other, are not always easily reconciled with one another, and that as members of an academic community, it is our duty to do all we can to ensure that the precarious balance between these often competing values doesn't tip too precariously one way or the other. The president goes on to cite the faculty guidelines on freedom of speech and expression, which call on all members of the College community to foster a climate in which academic and civic freedoms are cherished.
In the spirit of free and open debate invoked by President Dye, I think it worth pondering whether respect (even if, at times, for speech we hate) and tolerance (even if through clenched teeth) necessarily entail financial support. If students from Third World House or, for that matter, any other student organization, wish to use funds allocated to them through normal budgetary procedures to invite an inflammatory and controversial speaker, so be it; I stand ready to respect their decision, much as I may disagree with it. But I see no need for the institution as a whole to supply its imprimatur by providing the prestige that comes with presidential funding. Such support can only serve to amplify a message that, if anything, deserves to find as little resonance as possible.
Why is it that sensitivity at Oberlin so often turns out to be a one-way street? Let's imagine the (very) hypothetical case of some students, perhaps only by way of provocation (it's happened before) inviting, say, a white supremacist such as David Duke or Randy Weaver to speak here on - "Black America Today." Outlandish, to be sure. But no more, in my view, than Kwame Ture on Zionism! I have great difficulty imagining that the president's office, or for that matter, any group on campus, would provide a dime of funding for such a speech by way of indicating its support for the values of academic freedom, respect and tolerance. And if an all too prominent figure such as Pat Buchanan, who unfortunately has substantial support within the electorate and who has with good reason been suspected of harboring views that easily could be construed as anti-semitic, were to speak here, I imagine his appearance would spark universal condemnation. Rest assured, I would write the same letter were any such hypothetical to become reality.
If some student organizations wish to squander their own funds on the likes of Kwame Ture, who am I to stop them? Beyond that, however, there are certain things - racism and antisemitism among them - that one cannot equivocate about. One might argue, in the spirit of the Latin tag "non olet" (it [money] doesn't smell) that the provision of funding does not imply support, let alone approbation. To which I respond, tolerance yes. But support, most certainly not! While there is always room for improvement, Oberlin's record on racial justice is too noble to be frittered away through such dubious compromises in the name of principle. If we were always to act on such principles, we might end up not having any principles at all.
Copyright © 1996, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 124, Number 18; March 15, 1996
Contact Review webmaster with suggestions or comments at ocreview@www.oberlin.edu.
Contact Review editorial staff at oreview@oberlin.edu.