Dear
Spectator
Editorial Board,
On Oct. 25th, Paul Gottfried, a historian, came to speak at two Hamilton classes. His appearance, unannounced to the Hamilton campus until two days prior, was ostensibly to discuss his writings on fascism and on the conservative movement. However, Gottfried is also a former mentor and collaborator of notorious white supremacist Richard Spencer. Gottfried has himself expressed belief in the genetic superiority and inferiority of different races and suggested that some groups of people are inherently unfit for self-government. An article of his on the website of the racist organization
American Renaissance
lays out these views quite plainly.
I do not presume to judge Gottfried’s expertise as a historian. Frankly, I don’t care, because Gottfried is an unapologetic, practicing racist. He does not belong on our campus and should never have been here.
Gottfried’s presence in the classroom meant that students were required to listen to a speaker, presented as a distinguished scholar, who believes that some of them are genetically unfit to be at an institution like Hamilton. Sure, he was not invited to discuss his views on race, but these views were readily unearthed by our students, and discussion of them was virtually inevitable. Based on what I have heard from various students, his racist views came up via questions in at least one of the two classes. Though Gottfried apparently hemmed and hawed a bit, in the end he did not disavow his own racism and perhaps even doubled down on it.
A number of students said that they appreciated the opportunity to challenge Gottfried. Some people have pointed out that a liberal arts college is a community dedicated to open discourse and debate. But a liberal arts college is more than that. It is also a community dedicated to the intellectual development of its students and their professors. In addition, it is a workplace and also, for students, a home.
Though students showed courage and insight in questioning Gottfried, this does not at all legitimate or excuse his presence on campus. A discussion over the relative genetic fitness of different groups might seem like a chance for a bracing argument or an opportunity to refute a loathsome adherent of so-called “scientific” racism, a long discredited theory. A willingness to engage this issue reflects John Stuart Mill’s notion of unfettered discussion and relentless testing of values and beliefs as necessary means toward the truth. The Millian view calls on us to entertain even vile and baseless positions so that we can be more secure in our own convictions. However, in some cases this path to the truth, even if it ultimately leads to the rejection of racism, may have unacceptable costs, even casualties.
Inviting a figure like Gottfried into the classroom puts the very humanity of members of our community and the legitimacy of their presence here up for debate. As Government professor Gbemende Johnson put it, “Whatever value may exist in such discussions, it is difficult to have a piece of your humanity and existence constantly sacrificed at the altar of pedagogy.” Those who urge in the name of free expression that we can subject even the basic humanity and dignity of members of our community to debate are often straight, white men like me who are rarely, if ever, the subject of such debates. Moreover, such discussions also embolden individuals, including on our campus, seeking to justify their own racism.
Certainly, Hamilton has invited other speakers with controversial and even offensive views, including some with very reprehensible baggage. However, the poisonous and very personal, threatening, and divisive effect of racist discourse is virtually unparalleled. Its mere utterance is a personal attack on real flesh-and-blood human beings — colleagues, coworkers, classmates, and friends — and an attack backed up by centuries of state-sponsored racist terrorism and white supremacism in our country. And the threat posed by racist discourse is especially dangerous now. The recent outbursts of white racist violence in Charlottesville and elsewhere, not to mention the 2015 massacre at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston and other hate crimes in the past several years, should give us pause about who we legitimize through invitations to our classrooms. White nationalism is now a self-conscious, organized movement with a very visible public presence, bolstered by approval from the current occupant of the White House.
Lest someone who reads this think that I am attacking conservatism, the views articulated by Gottfried and other white supremacists are not conservative and are unworthy of the rich intellectual tradition of conservatism. No, these views are radically reactionary and totalitarian.
I would add that while open debate is a cherished value, it is not an absolute one. Speakers on both left and right have urged limits on who should be invited to campus. A number of years ago, some members of our community raised hell when Ward Churchill, another speaker with reprehensible views, was invited to Hamilton. Churchill had made ugly, offensive remarks about the victims of 9/11. Though he was not invited to speak specifically about these comments, several faculty members — rightly, I would emphasize — brought these remarks to the attention of the community and argued that Churchill was unworthy of being a guest of the college. Given the obvious parallels with Gottfried’s visit, I would ask that we maintain consistency here.
In short, the expression of racist views and the consideration of them even as worthy of legitimate debate serves not to promote freedom and open expression. Rather, it serves to intimidate, threaten, and silence.
Sincerely,
Peter F. Cannavò
Associate Professor of Government
Director, Environmental Studies Program
