Editor’s note: The views expressed in this letter are that of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of The Spectator

.

Dear Spectator Editorial Board,

Recently, the College announced a news speaker’s series underpinned by the concept of “Common Ground,” an event featuring a prominent Republican (Karl Rove) and prominent Democrat (David Axelrod). The Hamilton News site and later

The Spectator

prominently advertised the initiative.

President David Wippman stated that the “goal for Common Ground is for the speakers, one a Democrat, the other a Republican, to model the kind of respectful dialogue across political boundaries that should occur not just on college campuses, but in the broader society as well. With capable speakers on both sides of a given issue, each willing to acknowledge strengths in the position of the other, we aim to encourage students and other audience members to question their own assumptions and consider carefully the evidence and arguments supporting other viewpoints.”

The Spectator

followed up last week, quoting Wippman as emphasizing that the Rove/Axelrod tete-a-tete would be a “conversation” rather than a debate.

I have serious disagreement with the general thrust and trajectory of the principle of “common ground” or “both sides” in the current U.S. context. Common ground in the contemporary U.S. political scene is manifestly a false equivalency. Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Adichie sums it up very well in referring to an incident in the 2016 campaign: “A day after the election, I heard a journalist on the radio speak of the vitriol between Obama and Trump. No, the vitriol was Trump’s. Now is the time to burn false equivalencies forever. Pretending that both sides of an issue are equal when they are not is not ‘balanced’ journalism, it is a fairy tale — and, unlike most fairy tales, a disingenuous one.” We had another potent example of false

equivalency in Charlottesville, when President Trump blamed “many sides” for the violence in the streets.

We have witnessed a sitting U.S. President, a pathological liar, misogynist and racist, both as candidate and President, violate every single facet of respect, decency and “respectful” norms. So what is the logic of “common

ground” if one is faced, say, with a debate or conversation to decide

on whether or not Trump is racist? An agreement on a more palatable

racism than the noxious drivel that regularly emerge from Trump’s

tweets?

That this level of behavior in the Oval Office should continue for

so long is a blot on the country. For the College to imply that there is

an observable common ground, a space of compromise, is a cha-

rade. If there is evidence of such from the Trump Administration,

then I imagine we would have to employ the Hamilton observatory

to assist in locating it. It’s certainly not evident, especially to people

of color, immigrants, DREAMers, Muslims, refugees, workers, and

so many other categories of the insulted and oppressed.

The principle and intent behind the planned series of talks might be well-intentioned. Dispassionate academic discourse has its place. In times like these, however, what we really need is passionate, consistent and spir-

ited attack on racism and other forms and acts of intolerance and bigotry emanating from the White House. Too much is at stake for an elusive search for a fanciful, polite, common ground.

Yours sincerely,

Nigel Westmaas

Associate Professor of Africana Studies