Archives
April 2022
Categories
All
|
Back to Blog
The Lost Opportunity for Unification5/12/2021 ERIN SPELLMAN
As a member of the Boston College Class of 2021, I find myself, like so many other Seniors, spending time reflecting on my BC experience as we approach graduation. The education I received here at the Heights—academically, socially, spiritually, and philosophically—has truly shaped me in ways that I could never have imagined. As I log into Canvas one last time to submit a final research paper, I realize that this is the time to celebrate and to recognize that which my classmates and I have accomplished during our four years on this beautiful campus. The various events of Senior Week will lead us to the day we could only envision and work towards when we entered campus for the first time as Freshman in the fall of 2017: Boston College’s 144th Commencement. The past four years have brought great division to every aspect of life in America. While we may have differing views about the root causes of such division, it is clear that the one thing we can, in fact, agree on is that this division down party lines very much exists; it is a living, breathing, deep seated division that has dominated much of our college experience, both on and off campus. However divided we may feel politically, the Boston College Class of 2021 graduates do share common ground as we move forward into the world: We have worked diligently for the past four years to earn our degree, we have walked the same steps across a campus we love, we are shaped in the spirit of a Jesuit education, and we are all BC Eagles. What a wonderful opportunity to recognize such unification of the Class of 2021 on Graduation Day. Unfortunately, instead of capitalizing on the common ground of BC’s Class of 2021, BC’s Administration has chosen a highly divisive figure, New York Times columnist David Brooks, to speak at our Commencement. BC’s choice of Brooks is highly suspect given that University President William P. Leahy, S.J. argued that “…our nation must address and resolve social and political differences creating harmful divisions...” in a late January letter to the BC Community. Nothing screams “addressing and resolving division” like a commencement speaker whose headlines state that “Trumpians are having a venomous panic attack” and that “The G.O.P Is Getting Even Worse” or his likening of the January 6th Capital events to the atrocities of 9/11. I wonder how the Republican students and their Republican parents in attendance will feel about a speaker who suggests that “we do face a political crisis in this country, and the Republican Party is the epicenter of that crisis.” While I most certainly support a diverse range of views and a respectful exchange of ideas, the time for such scholarly endeavors has already transpired for us over the past four years. These newly anointed BC alumni and their parents will think twice about future gifting to the University as they recall being subjected to the proselytizing of a highly divisive Brooks. Any reasoning for this decision by BC escapes me. Even Brooks’ own New York Times colleague David Murray stated in a 2017 opinion piece on controversial graduation speakers, “Free and open debate is indeed one of the hallmarks of democracy. But it’s not one of the hallmarks of commencement addresses. This is something I wish college administrators would get through their thick heads.” As I close my time at the Heights, I wish that I had taken the opportunity to suggest a Commencement Speaker candidate that appeals to all, such as the President of Massachusetts General Hospital, Dr. Peter Slavin, who was at the epicenter of the COVID-19 Pandemic and who led MGH’s emergency response to the Boston Marathon bombing crisis in 2013; or Catherine D’Amato, the President and CEO of the Greater Boston Food Bank, who is combating the dire issue of food insecurity in the Boston area; or Astronaut Christopher Cassidy, who returned last October from his 3rd visit to the Space Station after living for 196 days in outer space. I can only imagine the perspective BC graduates and their parents could have enjoyed together by any of these speakers, unified in the discussion of the greater good of mankind. To current and future Boston College students; I encourage you to stand up for your beliefs and fight for unity on this campus.
Back to Blog
Dear Editorial Board of The Heights, I am Luis Duran and I currently serve as the President of Boston College Republicans. Your article, “To Promote Dialogue, Student Organizations Should Not Invite Prejudiced Speakers,” was recently brought to my attention. In this article, you argued that “Student organizations should not invite discriminatory speakers that ostracize members of the BC community and do not constructively participate in open debate.” With this statement I agree. In fact, I speak on behalf of Boston College Republicans; we agree with this statement. Now I must say that given our level of agreement, I was very shocked to read the numerous accusations that you cast at my organization. In your article, you wrote of “a pattern of hateful and inappropriate speakers,” and you offered two examples of speakers that my organization has invited: Andrew Klavan and Hadley Arkes. Let me tell you about Hadley Arkes: Hadley Arkes is the Edward N. Ney Professor of Jurisprudence and American Institutions at Amherst College. He is also the Founder and Director of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights; he is the founder of the Committee for the American Founding. Hadley Arkes has written dozens of books with topics that range from the Constitution to morality. Hadley Arkes is a well-known and respected political scientist and professor. He writes for First Things and does a bi-weekly column for The Catholic Thing. The title of the talk he gave was “Natural Law Challenge,” and his entire talk was about the importance of natural law. Inappropriate you said? Or did you mean to say that in this talk he said something you disagreed with? Hateful? I am sure that you are aware that the term “hateful” is a very subjective term. Why is he hateful according to you? Because he holds an opinion that is different than that of the majority of people at BC? Are those the standards by which you measure hatefulness? If those are your standards, then I am glad to say that we have different standards (something we can afford to do given the subjectivity of your terms). Let me tell you about Andrew Klavan: he is a conservative commentator for The Daily Wire and a novelist. He has written over 30 books and has won the Edgar Allan Poe Award twice. He has a daily podcast where he gives plenty of conservative commentary. He is popular among young conservatives and was a popular choice of a speaker in 2019. The title of his talk was “The Art of Being Free,” and it was mostly about his career as a novelist, the importance of words, and the frequent failure of universities to protect free speech. Inappropriate? You accuse him of being an Islamophobe and thus say that he was hateful and inappropriate. Now I disagree that he is Islamophobic, but that is something that we can debate about. However, there was no room for debate because the moment that your newspaper got wind that he would be coming to campus, you immediately characterized him as Islamophobic. So you shut out the possibility of debate. Had you not done so, the campus dialogue could have been different. Rather than “BC Republicans to invite speaker with history of Islamophobic comments,” the conversation could have been about what Islamophobia actually is, and how it is manifested and experienced. Maybe we would have learned something, and maybe you would have learned something. But we were unable to do this because of your unwise and unjust actions. The impediment to constructive dialogue was not our invitation, but your premature response and accusation. In your article, you also cited some examples of speakers who positively contributed to dialogue and debate on campus. One of these examples was the pro-life talk by Kristan Hawkins in 2019. Later on you also wrote that “Clubs should not invite a guest speaker that can be accused of breaching the peace on campus, and therefore doing more harm than good.” And you proceed to cite Klavan and the protest in response to his talk as examples. I was shocked. Your own newspaper called Hawkins’ talk divisive and she was also met with protests which could be accused of “breaching the peace on campus.” You published an article about the Hawkins talk that read, “some in the student population have found the title hurtful and an attack on feminists and humans.” This same article talks about the event’s posters being ripped down before the talk. A different article that you published reads “In my opinion, the event did not promote “respect and empathy” for middle-class, abled, and heterosexual Catholic white women, let alone those of different(/no) genders, races, ethnicities, sexualities, religions, abilities, and socioeconomic backgrounds.” How can you have criticized a talk as presenting an attack to “feminists and humans” just two years ago, and now present it as an example of a talk that promoted respectful discourse? Hawkins’ talk had a very similar response to that of Klavan; yet you wrote that campus speakers should preserve peace on campus and presented Klavan as disruptive and Hawkins as peaceful. I will not say that you are being opportunistic, I will not criticize you for hypocrisy, and I won’t say that you did not do your research very well, but I am unsure of what else I could say. Further, your article establishes a question and answer session as a prerequisite for promoting dialogue and respectful discourse on campus. Again, I am shocked. Both Klavan and Arkes had lengthy question and answer sessions, and they both answered questions from people who disagreed with them. And these questions were not only welcomed, but encouraged! If you had attended the Arkes talk, you would have noted that the discussion of homosexuality began in the question and answer session. Some of our members disagreed with Arkes and voiced their disagreements, and other disagreements came from non-members. I am not quite certain what the difference is between the talks that you categorized as constructive and those that you categorized as inappropriate and hateful. Again, I will not say that you did not do your research, but it seems to me that you did not do your research. Your article also put weight on the importance of “the right to feel safe at all times on campus.” I think this is important; BC students should feel safe on campus. Yet here you are, making me feel unsafe. I am not exaggerating, nor am I playing a victim card. In 2019, the article that accuses Klavan of Islamophobia (with purposefully distorted evidence and misinformation) has my name literally written all over it. How do you think my peers responded to my very presence after that? You think the undeserved and unjust rejection I encountered after that article made me feel safe? Just the other day, you published an article that called my organization a hate group. Why? Because we think differently than the majority of BC students? That’s not fair. I do not hate anyone and my organization does not hate anyone. And who gives you the authority to decide who is and who isn’t a hate group? Do you think that being unjustly and undeservedly called the leader of a hate group makes me feel safe or welcomed at Boston College? Am I not a student at Boston College? Do I not fall under the umbrella of students which you say must feel safe at all times on campus? The night of the Klavan event, I had to be escorted out of the room by BCPD. The unending and uncivil banging on the walls by protestors heightened the night’s fears. Do you have any idea how unsafe I felt when I saw the hatred with which people were looking at me and addressing me? Unlike myself and the rest of the Executive Board, the people who attended the talk were not escorted out. As they walked out of the room, a number of slurs and other atrocities were yelled at them. Do you think they felt safe? Do you think that the pro-life organization who hosted the Kristan Hawkins talk felt safe when their posters were being torn down? Were they not students who must feel safe at all times? It is funny that in your article, you wrote that during the Klavan protests, the protestors “egged on.” This past fall semester, a group of female students had a Trump flag in their living room which was slightly visible from their window. One night they heard some noise at their door, and when they investigated, they found that their door had been egged. They reported the attack, but asked not to receive publicity because they feared further aggression. Is that what feeling safe looks like? Do you have any idea how humiliating it was for those girls to see the door of their dorm room covered in eggs? What better way to tell someone that they are not welcome on campus? You say that students at Boston College should feel safe at all times. Does that apply to all students or just some? Does that include conservative students as well? Does that include me? Where are your criticisms of the left leaning speakers that trump debate and discourse on campus? Why won’t you criticize the immediate attacks which we receive for our events? Why do you say that students should feel safe at all times and simultaneously make some students feel unsafe? Because we bring speakers that make others feel uncomfortable and unsafe? These speakers present ideas that are uncommon or unseen at Boston College, but not ideas that threaten the safety of others. Klavan’s talk was about free speech, and he only briefly mentioned Islam and not in criticism. The controversy around Klavan started when The Heights assumed possession of absolute truth and gave him the title of Islamophobe. So if you disagree with unproductive controversy, then please check yourselves. Arkes made someone feel unsafe? I will assume that this claim is not jargon and I will respond to it. If Arkes made you feel unsafe, it wasn’t him but the ideas he delivered that made you feel unsafe. What ideas were these? That homosexuality stands opposed to natural law? Well, go ahead and disagree with it. Some of our own members disagreed. We welcome dissent and disagreement. But unsafe? An 81-year-old man on a computer screen made you feel profoundly unsafe? Perhaps this has less to do with what he was saying and more to do with the fact that you, and many in the BC community, do not like hearing ideas that they disagree with. Boston College Republicans can claim that they feel “unsafe” by the multitude of left leaning talks that are held at BC every year. There are literally dozens of talks on critical race theory, the “so-called” failures of capitalism, the abolition of the Second Amendment, environmental policies that all but require a socialist state, and many more every single year. Many members of Boston College Republicans disagree with some of these positions, but I have yet to see any of them claim to feel unsafe or organize a smear campaign against the speakers or the organizations that invite them. We disagree with them, yes; but we don’t say that these talks make us unsafe just because we disagree with them. As such, it is not so evident to me that we are contributing to the division on campus. Quite the contrary, your divisive language and intolerance of conservative opinions do much more to increase the political divide on campus than we do. There are reasons for some BC students to feel unsafe at BC, and this is wrong and should be addressed. But us inviting certain speakers is not one of these reasons any more than other student organizations inviting left-leaning speakers is one of those reasons, especially when these speakers are not attacking any students at Boston College. And perhaps I am underestimating you, but I think it is necessary to explain that diverse opinions do not constitute an attack or a threat to the safety of any student. While your newspaper has partaken in the task of smearing my organization, BCR has been working to promote the very dialogue that you speak about. In the past two years, we have had five different speakers, and we would have had more if the pandemic had not occurred. One of these speakers was Professor of Political Science at Boston College, Peter Skerry. In his talk, titled “The Other Side of Diversity,” he argued that “we’ve put African Americans at a disadvantage as a result of this emphasis on diversity,” and that America has a certain obligation to African Americans that it does not have to other minorities. The Heights published an article about this talk, so you were at least aware of this. We had Professor Peter Kreeft, of Boston College’s Philosophy department, give a talk on the pro-life position. We had Dr. Carol M. Swain give a talk titled “The Privilege of Opportunity: A Conversation with Carol Swain,” in which she talked about her life and the equality of opportunity that people have in America. And for your information, they all had lengthy question and answer sessions. The only talks that have sparked unproductive controversy have been those that you have endeavored to smear. All of the speakers we invite are nothing but respectful to students, and they have all had question and answer sessions. You say that “students bear the responsibility of maintaining ongoing and respectful conversations on campus.” Well that is exactly what we have done. In fact, we have created an opportunity for more respectful conversations on campus. But you also bear a responsibility to provide unbiased news and to give everyone a fair hearing. Your repeated discrimination against us, your intolerance of our views, and your ignorance of our opinions show that you either have utter contempt for your responsibility as a newspaper, or you are just really bad at living up to your responsibilities. Before the pandemic, Boston College Republicans and Boston College Democrats had agreed to co-host a field day. One can hope that some friendship and productive conversations would have come from this event. This fall, Boston College Republicans and Boston College Democrats collaborated with the Network of Enlightened Women at Boston College on an event called ElectHer. The event was intended to provide women who were considering a career in politics with resources to pursue such careers. Boston College Republicans meet weekly to discuss current events, debate about political theory issues, and discuss new policies in Massachusetts and America as a whole. We help our members network. We speak to the administration on behalf of our members. Our organization serves as a means to make friendships. Many of our members organize social events. We held the Freedom Convocation, where we gave a platform for conservative students to exchange ideas and viewpoints with each other. For all intents and purposes, we are a regular student organization. But for some odd reason the independent newspaper at Boston College chooses to paint us as a “hate group.” We are not a hate group, our invitations of Klavan and Arkes were not inherently wrong or oppressive, we have never threatened the safety of anyone, and The Heights does not have the authority to decide what should and should not be allowed on campus. Once again, I will not say that your newspaper is but a shadow of journalism. I won’t say that The Heights is as biased as they come. I won’t say that The Heights is dishonest for not owning up to this bias. And most importantly, I will never in my life say that your irresponsible and unethical journalism practices are what make The Heights a lousy excuse of a newspaper and what sparks unproductive controversy. Saying these things would not be nice, and I am a nice person. So I refrain. What I will ask of you is that you start doing your part to ensure that all students at Boston College feel safe and welcomed on campus. And I humbly ask that you abandon this odd infatuation you have with my organization. A fellow Eagle, Luis Duran |