Professors should do more to discourage radicalization

Professors should do more to promote diversity and inclusion and discourage radicalization 
In response to the petition against Matt Walsh
By Calliope

(“School of Athens,” Raphael, 1511)

On March 27, Audrey (aka Aiden) Hale, who identified as transgender, went on a shooting rampage at a private Christian school, killing three young children and three adults. It was an orchestrated attack, planned months in advance, and documents left behind by the shooter indicate that Hale may have intended additional targets. 

It is possible that this attack may be emblematic of a disturbing turn toward radicalization within the trans community. One recent Canadian study found: “Transgender and gender-diverse youth emerge as the group” with higher levels of support for violent radicalization than any other demographic. Meanwhile, and contrary to popular perception, one study finds that trans Americans are less likely to be victims of homicide than the general population; another study adds some nuance but nevertheless confirms those findings. 

Those are the facts. Does it follow that the trans community poses a danger to Christians everywhere and its advocates should be barred from speaking at Washington and Lee University? 

Of course not. Any advocacy group may contain radicalized members at the fringe. No group should ever be characterized by its most reprehensible members or by the damage they inflict. But the increasing radicalization of Americans, and the epidemic of mass shootings, should be a reminder that reckless and inflammatory speech poses real dangers. 

These reflections bring us to the petition which circulated before Matt Walsh was due to speak at the university on March 30, three days after the Nashville shooting. Although no one denies the constitutional right of all Americans to express their opinions, this petition was ill advised, for two reasons. 

In the first place, the text of the petition contained inaccurate and defamatory statements designed to fuel outrage rather than inform. Most incendiary was the claim that Walsh used “violent words” proceeding from “a hateful ideology that harms our minority students”; therefore, the university was prompted to take “action to protect its minority students from future harmful events.”  

According to reporting by The Spectator, some professors engaged in more extreme fear-mongering, claiming that “Matt Walsh is an extremely dangerous person who represents a very real threat of physical violence.” 

If these claims were true, then it would be incumbent on the university to prevent the “violence” anticipated from the speech and protect minorities from this unspecified “harm.” And if the university failed in its fundamental duty to keep students safe, then by the universally recognized right of self-defense, the community would be justified in employing violence to defend itself from this expected threat. 

Yet neither the petition nor anyone else offered evidence that Mr. Walsh’s rhetoric was violent or that anyone had ever suffered harm from listening to his speech. Hence, by falsely claiming that the speaker represented a threat of violence, the petition risked fomenting the very violence it ostensibly wished to prevent. Spreading false rumors of imminent danger is the surest way to radicalize otherwise peaceful trans activists. 

That Mr. Walsh, who lives in Nashville, was forced to postpone his speech at Washington and Lee due to death threats against him and his family should be a salutary lesson to everyone who genuinely loves peace: in the interest of a safer world, we must demand that our values (though not the First Amendment) require that misleading and overheated demagoguery be dialed back.  

But college students do not always express their opinions with a sufficient regard for accuracy, prudence, and self-control. Their youth must plead their excuse. 

This brings us to the second problematic aspect of the petition. Even more disturbing than the intemperate and irresponsible language was the fact that a substantial number of my colleagues, the faculty at this university, chose to sign it. By the day of the planned event, the petition had garnered 632 signatures; over 10 percent were faculty. Even worse, I have been reliably informed that some instructors used class time to urge their students to add their signatures.  

The appearance of institutional support for this petition is problematic for two reasons. In the first place, university professors are supposed to instruct students how to engage in mature deliberation and open inquiry. By demonizing an opposing viewpoint, and seeking to silence it, these professors were not setting a proper example for their students. If young people do not learn civil discourse and critical thinking skills in the university classroom, where will they learn it? 

In the second place, the professors’ actions demonstrate their failure to abide by Washington and Lee’s Statement of Commitment to Diversity, which was quoted in the opening paragraph of the petition. This university is supposed to be “committed to the recruitment, enrichment, and retention of students, faculty, and staff who embody many experiences, cultures, points of view, interests, and identities.” 

Did the professors who were urging their students to sign this petition ever consider that some of their students might have viewpoints different from their own? Some W&L students are traditional Christians, Jews, and Muslims whose “experiences, cultures, points of view, interests, and identities” align with the speaker whom this petition sought to silence, defame, and exclude. Indeed, Matt Walsh was invited to the university by certain student groups, who evidently wished to hear what he had to say.  

By signing this petition, and urging others to sign it, these professors were communicating that some groups of students are not welcome at this university and that their opinions deserve to be silenced, shamed, and excluded. They have signaled that the only opinions welcome in their classroom are those which align with their own. 

I assume that these professors were acting in good faith. According to the best lights of their conscience, they were seeking what they honestly believed to be in the best interest of American youth. I likewise assume that Matt Walsh and his supporters are acting in good faith. According to the best lights of their conscience, they are seeking what they honestly believe to be in the best interest of American youth.  

The only way to determine who has the better argument—to decide how best to promote the interests of young people today—is by listening, listening carefully and respectfully, to both sides. The goal of “diversity and inclusion” means welcoming a diverse range of perspectives and encouraging open and respectful dialogue between them. Or it does not mean anything at all.  

President Dudley should be commended for his unswerving commitment to viewpoint diversity. And those professors who believe that the classroom is the forum to advocate on behalf of some groups of students and against others should consider how they might better discourage radicalization and encourage the university’s core values of diversity and inclusion. 

The opinions expressed in this magazine are the author's own and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Spectator, or any students or other contributors associated with the magazine. It is the intention of The Spectator to promote student thought and civil discourse, and it is our hope to maintain that civility in all discussions.