Earlier this week, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declined invitation to speak at Rutgers University’s commencement ceremony. Her withdrawal came as a result of the #NoRice campaign, a movement led by a group of Rutgers University faculty members and students, some of whom organized a sit-in of the university president’s office. The group accused Rice of heinous war crimes, citing her involvement in the Iraq War during the Bush administration. New Brunswick is far from Hanover. A commencement ceremony has little in common with a philanthropic event. Still, I cannot help but see similarities between the dilemma at Rutgers and the controversial cancellation of “Phiesta.” Reactions to both events demonstrate an unwillingness to engage critically with an opposing view, instead opting to simply dismiss it.
The foregone opportunities of an engaging commencement speaker and funds for cardiac research are linked. They are both symptoms of a larger problem — at Rutgers, at Dartmouth and at colleges and universities across the United States. We must realize that canceling something that conflicts with one’s perspective, rather than using the disagreement as an opportunity for dialogue, is childish, self-centered and counterproductive.
At a basic level, Rice’s withdrawal as commencement speaker and the cancellation of “Phiesta” were both responses to offended college students, faculty and administrators. Ostensibly, these students had to earn admission to either Rutgers or Dartmouth, both prestigious institutions. To do so, they had to demonstrate that they could indeed think critically. Unfortunately, the #NoRice campaign at Rutgers and the complaints filed against “Phiesta” have reflected quite the opposite. Only allowing the things that reinforce their world view while censoring what falls outside is a juvenile tactic that does a great disservice to all students. In the Rutgers example, opponents stifled free and open discussion, the lifeblood of any educational institution. To the protesters at Rutgers: Does merely listening to someone with different views compromise the integrity of your perspectives? At Dartmouth, denouncing a charitable event because it offends some students eliminates its potential benefits. To those who called for the fundraiser’s cancellation: Does a philanthropic event whose name uses a potentially appropriative pun merit cancellation?
Advocating the outright removal of potentially offensive content or perspectives, rather than allowing them to provoke discussion, is egotistical. “Phiesta” may not have been the wisest choice of name, but the event itself still would have benefited many. At Rutgers, the small contingent of #NoRice proponents eliminated the prospect of an engaging commencement address and trampled over the rest of the student body who supported the former Secretary of State as commencement speaker. It is absurd that this vocal minority single-handedly eliminated what might have been an enriching experience for many. To be clear, this is not to say that the voice of the minority should not be heard. However, the allegations made by students in the #NoRice campaign were spurious. The former Secretary of State has never been found guilty of war crimes in a court of law. Those supporting the #NoRice campaign are free to advance these claims if they so choose. However, these unfounded accusations should have brought greater scrutiny, not Rice’s withdrawal as commencement speaker. Similarly, the concerns about “Phiesta” should be heard, but the event should not have been canceled.
Where are we now? Rice has withdrawn from speaking at a university’s commencement and a legitimate fundraiser has been canceled. However, these occurrences are mere byproducts of something far more egregious — withdrawal from rational, coherent discussion. This is the path of least resistance. Engaging in civil discussion with those of opposing views is far more difficult than resorting to groundless accusations of war crimes and cultural appropriation. This retreat from sensible exchange of ideas is counterproductive, polarizing and alienating. The withdrawal of a commencement speaker and the cancellation of a fundraiser are probably inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. However, these events set a troublesome precedent that has negative repercussions for everyone, regardless of race, gender or political ideology.
