Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

It's More Than High Jinks

February 8, 2010

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The New York Times last month reported a story about several politically active students who crossed the line from what the Times called “high jinks” to allegedly committing a federal felony (by breaking into the office of Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana to learn whether the Senator’s office was deliberately not answering phone calls). While this criminal activity is nothing short of outrageous, I assume it is an aberration. It is, however, connected to a bigger problem.

These students are part of an organized group of conservative students whose tactics are already well-known on many college campuses: selling cookies at reduced rates to women and students-of-color in protest of affirmative action; sneaking video cameras into classrooms and campus forums and posting out-of-context excerpts, often anonymously, as evidence of liberal indoctrination on campus; hosting a gun raffle; researching and publicizing campaign contributions of faculty members and staff. High jinks? Really? Check the campusreform.org Web site, which advises, “Why take action? Because it will shock your opposition.” Is that why activism matters, to shock and discourage others? Are faculty members and other students “the opposition?”

We need to be clear about what these acts are: attention-seeking tactics that intimidate faculty, students, and guest speakers, distort facts, reduce public issues to simplistic sound-bites, and inhibit the thoughtful exchange of ideas and deliberation, both in and out of the classroom. The students named in the Times are not trying to offset liberal bias – they are trying to prevent learning and chill, if not stop, civil discourse.

Recently, everyday citizens, columnists (including Tom Friedman, also in the Times), newspaper editors, and President Obama have amplified their call for the end of partisan gamesmanship and tactics that promote vitriol, conflict, and stalemates at the national level. It’s time that colleges and universities demand the same of their students.

We know what we should do:

  1. Create spaces on campuses for better political discourse. When children act out, as my grandmother used to say, it’s because they haven’t been given constructive opportunities to “get the starch out.” Campus venues for public deliberation don’t need to be free-for-alls, like some (not all) of the health care town hall meetings in the fall. They can be structured learning opportunities in classrooms and beyond where students are expected to study an issue and engage in a process of open-minded and reasoned dialogue, respectful communication across differences, and collaborative problem solving. These should be venues where members of the campus community can “call for” dialogue on hot-button public issues. They are also venues where “high jinks” have no place.
  2. Teach the arts of democracy: It’s no wonder the state of public discourse is so pathetic. Some of the structures that once were places where individuals learned how to behave as citizens in a democracy have broken down (families, neighborhoods, places of worship, newspapers, civics classes). Facilitating, establishing rules for engagement, active listening, issue framing, managing conflict, consensus building, and democratic decision making are skills most students simply don’t have. Campuses can offer certificate programs, weekend workshops and trainings, for-credit programs in intergroup relations and conflict resolution and leadership, and summer institutes. They can support faculty development in dialogue and deliberation as classroom pedagogy. The arts of democracy need to be taught. And they need to be practiced, to become habits on campuses.
  3. Involve the broader community, not just enrolled students, in discussions about pressing issues. Doing so will increase the likelihood that students will be exposed to a diversity of perspectives. Getting to know, listening to, and learning alongside people with very different life experiences, including those with varied levels of social and political power and privilege, will help students keep an open mind and find solutions they hadn’t previously considered. At the same time, campuses can model a better way to do democracy, teach everyday citizens the arts of democracy, provide neutral venues for informed political deliberation, and serve as catalysts for reasoned, citizen-driven solutions to public problems.

Colleges and universities shy away from political discourse, partly because it is unpredictable and stirs up hornets, but that’s short-sighted and ill-advised. Some students are acting out as a result. And they don’t have to be so timid. Colleges and universities are not “the public square,” nor should they be. They are learning environments, and shocking and intimidating “high jinks” (again, felonies aside) cross a line and disrupt the educational process.

Higher education need to be more intentional about creating places where free, open, reasoned, and respectful speech takes place and where people’s opinions, including thoughtful conservative perspectives, are heard. Perhaps a place to start is with the state of political discourse and activism, on campus and off.

Nancy Thomas directs the Democracy Imperative at the University of New Hampshire.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on It's More Than High Jinks

  • Shutting Down Debates
  • Posted by ADD on February 8, 2010 at 3:15pm EST
  • I'm all for open debates on controversial issues, but Ms. Thomas is wrong to single out conservatives for shutting them down. There are numerous recent examples of liberal students using the "hecklers veto" which is shouting down anyone with whom you disagree. Why is it only a problem when conservatives do it?

  • Posted by mfh on February 8, 2010 at 3:45pm EST
  • Examples please?

  • Examples
  • Posted by ADD on February 8, 2010 at 4:00pm EST
  • Sorry, I don't have time to post examples at the moment. You can look up several at www.fire.org

  • Start with the basics
  • Posted by Dr. Doreen Larson , Vice President for Student Affairs at Holyoke Community College on February 8, 2010 at 6:00pm EST
  • Political leanings aside, campuses can unite to raise the level of civility, both inside and outside of the classroom. Many faculty are intentional in their support of student learning through experience in difficult dialogues and most faculty value critical thinking and inquiry above all else. At the same time, campus shared governance is the forum to model and practice civility by all levels of campus staff. On our campus, we formed a coalition of administration, faculty, and students to help share classroom practice and provide professional development for leaders in shared governance.

  • Posted by Abby at CampusReform.org on February 8, 2010 at 6:00pm EST
  • Ms. Thomas, thank you for highlighting CampusReform.org in your article and providing a link to the site.

    However, I think CampusReform.org's mission -- as you eloquently put it -- has been reduced to "simplistic sound-bites" here.

    The post you refer to is one of a series of 36 posts that highlight the benefits of activism, usually with a playful title (e.g. "Why take action? Because it could get you the sweetest internship ever" -- I promise that's not how the staff really write formally). Inside Higher Ed readers are welcome to peruse the 36 posts for themselves (http://www.campusreform.org/tags/36-reasons). And for those curious, other suggested benefits include getting valuable experience in new media, having fun, meeting new people, and working with good, local organizations -- not shock tactics.

    CampusReform.org's mission is to support free speech and free thought on college campuses. Based on evidence both analytic and anecdotal, we know that college campuses are overwhelmingly dominated by the left -- and that authority figures oftentimes wield their power to (attempt to) silence those students, overwhelmingly conservative or libertarian, with whom they disagree.

    For example, your suggestion to "create spaces on campuses for better political discourse" often end up as free speech zones. Such zones are, as you suggest, a specific space in which students (and faculty) can exercise their First Amendment rights of free speech, free assembly, etc. They are, however, unconstitutional, have been fought by both FIRE and the ACLU, and have been struck down in court (e.g. http://www.thefire.org/article/11462.html).

    Given the distaste for conservative principles and policies evident in this article, and throughout the academy, I think conservative and libertarian speech -- an outside opinion on many campuses -- is uniquely threatened when faculty and administrators decide how and when politics should be talked about.

  • Posted by DoveArrow on February 8, 2010 at 6:45pm EST
  • mfh,

    As much as I disagree with conservative politics in general, I can think of at least one example where 'liberal' protestors engaged in the kind of 'high jinks' (if we want to use that term) that Nancy Thomas describes. At Columbia University- in protest against the school allowing Minuteman leader, Jim Gilcrhist to speak- a group of students rushed the stage and reportedly tried to attack the speaker.

    That said, I think focusing on the fact that these kinds of acts are not limited to conservative politics entirely misses the point. Like the incident that Nancy Thomas mentions, the incident at Columbia University might have been entirely avoided if the university had done more to include these students in the political discussion.

  • Posted by Kiki on February 8, 2010 at 10:15pm EST
  • Three cheers for ADD, Abby and Dove Arrow. As ADD stated in his/her comment above: " why is it only a problem when conservatives do it?" Discourse implies that BOTH sides are able to speak, not just the liberals.

  • Education for Deliberative Democracies
  • Posted by Caryn McTighe Musil , Senior Vice President at Association of American Colleges and Universities on February 9, 2010 at 11:45am EST
  • Acknowledging full disclosure, I joined with others to help shape The Democracy Imperative, which Nancy Thomas heads, as part of a larger worldwide effort to promote informed, responsible citizenship as an essential goal of a contemporary college education. Such efforts can be found through organizations like the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) , where I work, and its College Learning for the New Global Century, to the American Association of State Colleges and Universities with its American Democracy Project, to the Council of Europe's Higher Education division as it turns to universities as sites for citizenship attending to widely differing civic issues within its 49 countries, to name only a few. Too often civic education has been reduced merely to a question of voting rather than much more complex dilemmas of negotiating real, imagined, and sometimes irreconciable differences in public and private spheres. Research confirms that deeper learning occurs when one takes seriously the perspectives of others, which does not necessarily mean agreeing with others but rather understanding why a particular viewpoint is held. That, in turn, typically prompts critical reflection on one's own views. Nancy Thomas' sound suggestions about how to begin to model what such deliberative democracy might look like offer useful starting places for colleges and universities. AAC&U's Academic Freedom and Educational Responsibilty provides further examples of how faculty in particular can help innoculate students from indoctrination by practicing civil discourse as they teach students to think critically, be curious about other people's viewpoints, work in diverse groups to solve real issues, and analyze information. Such contemporary notions of liberal education shift the focus from the certainty of political posterings to respectful explorations of ideas.

  • Of pies and satire...
  • Posted by Pete Peterson at Common Sense California on February 9, 2010 at 1:00pm EST
  • Nancy,

    Thanks for raising this subject. I see that other respondents have questioned the partisanship of these contra-dialogue efforts. Obviously, the pie-throwing aimed particularly at conservative campus speakers (and those who take a pro-Israel stance) is more directly abusive than an "affirmative action bake sale". The fact is many conservative speakers need to bring security to go on a college campus. This is ridiculous. These tactics are bleeding into moderate spheres. A little over a year ago, NY Times columnist Tom Friedman was "pie'd" by a "green" group at Brown University because he apparently wasn't strident enough in his support of anti-glowarm policies.

    I think a couple questions deserve asking:

    1.) Are most American college campuses left-leaning to the point, where conservative students feel that one of their few routes of communication is envelope-pushing satire?

    2.) Are most American college campuses right-leaning to the point, where liberal students feel the need to resort to pie-throwing and shouting down conservative speakers?

    Finally...

    3.) When does satire move from thought-provoking speech to dialogue-squelching intimidation?

    To dismiss satire out-of-hand is narrow-minded, and a-historical. We need to look for the nuance almost inherent in satire, and, frankly support those students who get it right - even when we disagree with them.

  • Civil discourse on campuses
  • Posted by Nancy Thomas , Director, the Democracy Imperative at University of New Hampshire on February 9, 2010 at 2:45pm EST
  • Thanks to everyone for weighing in so far. Just to clarify a couple of things: my piece was in response to a report on the NY Times front page, a week ago Sunday, which was on a set of acts by particular students. I agree: pie throwing and shouting down speakers is equally unnecessary (and in some cases, criminal) and equally likely to chill speech and a lively exchange of ideas.

    What surprises me is the suggestion by Abby that carving out space for the free and open exchange of ideas -- space that invites all sorts of perspectives including conservative views -- is unconstitutional. It's not, at least not the way I am envisioning it.

    To Pete's Peterson's questions about left and right leaning campus climates and where satire crosses a line, both in public life and in learning communities: These are great questions, Pete. Thanks for asking them. I hope people will post their own stories and views on these.

  • High Jinks
  • Posted by Robert Schwartz , Government at Canandaigua Academy on February 9, 2010 at 3:00pm EST
  • Tom Friedman has gone even further by swooning over the ability of the People's Republic of China to make tough decisions without being worried about partisan rancor. We should be far more worried about using 'civility' as an excuse to shut down opionions we feel are not worthy of the public square.

  • Where's the Balance?
  • Posted by J Bennett , Economics and Finance at Louisiana Tech University on February 9, 2010 at 5:00pm EST
  • Nancy, your one-sided examples betrays your larger point. Of course we should be civil to one another, but it goes both ways. Did it not occur to you that ALL of your examples were from the "right" of the aisle? And, no, your obligatory "pie throwing is bad, maybe even criminal" response to an earlier poster doesn't absolve you. If you yourself ARE desirous of civil discourse, you'd notice ANY uncivil behavior, regardless of politics.

    You also cite these examples but don't actually tell us why they're uncivil. It seems to me that selling cookies at lower prices to minorities and women, as a commentary on affirmative action, is quite a clever way of making a larger point...it's called SATIRE. That such offends you says much about your own intolerance. Free speech doesn't need a "special place" to be practiced, especially on a college campus.

  • Both/And
  • Posted by Sandy Heierbacher , Director at National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD) on February 9, 2010 at 5:45pm EST
  • Great, thought-provoking article, Nancy. I'm especially enjoying the discussion it's inspired.

    A couple quick thoughts... People in our field (democratic governance, deliberative democracy, etc.) use terms like "creating spaces" for open discourse that may connote different things to those outside the field. Generally, when we talk about creating a space for dialogue or creating a "safe space" for civil discourse we're talking about holding an event or program (or series of events) where people can look at an issue in depth from multiple perspectives -- we're not talking about setting aside a physical space that could then be interpreted as zones that limits free speech or open discourse to that one spot. I think that was an understandable misinterpretation by Abby of what Nancy was suggesting.

    I think it should be said, too, that introducing more dialogue and deliberation to college campuses is not an alternative to allowing people to speak freely and express their opinions and concerns in multiple ways. Nancy framed it as, at least in part, educating students on the arts of democracy (framing issues, active listening, facilitating, managing conflict, etc.). Not an either/or but a both/and, giving students alternatives, tools and skills at making their voices heard as well as hearing others.

    Also, I really appreciated Pete and and M.R.'s comments, questioning both whether conservative students feel that one of their few routes of communication is envelope-pushing satire, and whether we're actually living in a culture today where deliberation and dialogue are simply not seen as producing the desired attention and results. Certainly, there is a time for activism and a time for reflection, discussion, and learning, and teaching students the difference between deliberative democracy and activism (and tools for doing both) is another important "art of democracy" to add to the list.

  • Activism and Awareness - clarification
  • Posted by M.R. Diamond , Coordinator at Society for Values in Higher Education on February 9, 2010 at 7:15pm EST
  • To clarify my comment - by "the methods Nancy Thomas discusses", I was referring to such tactics as the tapping of telephones and deliberately misrepresenting themselves to gain access to confidential data. How can we promote engagement in discussion and the highlighting of issues in a way that respects individual integrity and rights?

  • Advising Students
  • Posted by Michele Holt-Shannon , Discovery Program at University of New Hampshire on February 10, 2010 at 7:30am EST
  • Over the years I have advised many students across the political spectrum who are making decisions about how to create change through activism. When, as can often happen, students move into the realm of the uncivil, even illegal, it is nice to have venues on campus that compel/cajole students into speaking their mind IN THE LIGHT OF DAY. One of the things I find most disturbing is the many opportunities today for anonymous posting/action - something that should be reserved for those who are at grave risk. THank you, Nancy for a great list of concrete ideas.

  • Nancy - how about the truth?
  • Posted by Matthew Hurtt , Campus Services Coordinator at CampusReform.org on February 10, 2010 at 3:45pm EST
  • It's pretty appalling that Miss Thomas lacks the basic intellectual honesty to speak in a non-partisan manner on this issue.

    First and most importantly, the "students" she mentions are not - in fact - students. They're independent adults, unaffiliated with any such campus, as suggested by Miss Thomas.

    Now, in the interest of full disclosure: I am one of the crazy conservatives who sought political balance on the campus of my alma mater. Yes, liberal professors who sought to advance a liberal agenda were met with direct political discourse, as I challenged their assertions in the classroom.

    Interestingly enough, it's the left which seeks to stifle free speech on campus. As we have seen at UNC Chapel Hill, where former Congressman Tom Tancredo spoke about immigration. Leftist students vanalized the room where he spoke, disrupted his speech, and Tancredo was forced to end his presentation.

    Additionally, students at Providence have blocked recognition of a conservative student group because the Student Government does not agree with their message.

    Also, a speaker's board at Indiana University at Bloomington refused funds to host Von Mises Institute fellow Tom Woods (~$4,000), but paid $40,000 to host John Edwards.

    Shame on you, Miss Thomas. Shame on you for your dishonest approach to political discourse.

  • The Beauty of Guidelines
  • Posted by Hina Pendle , Facilitator at Us Partners Organizational Development on February 10, 2010 at 6:15pm EST
  • The beauty of the guidelines that Nancy lays out in her article for deliberation doesn't include attacking, name calling, accusing and shaming — for good reasons. They shut down dialog, close what potentially could be an open mind, provoke anger and defensiveness. If the idea of democracy is to find the intelligence that lives in the hearts and minds of the participants. There are productive ways to create the context for "safe" discourse, where one isn't afraid of being hurt verbally or any other way. This applies across the political and idea spectrum.

    It is understandable that people can get frustrated feeling unheard and think acting out is the best way of getting their business done. It may look true in the short term but pain is unsustainable in the long run. We all feel better and are wiser when we are recognized, appreciated and held in high esteem. That's the aim of dialog and deliberation.

  • shame?
  • Posted by Michele Holt-Shannon , Discovery Program at University of New Hampshire on February 10, 2010 at 8:15pm EST
  • I'm sorry, Matthew, but I am missing where Ms. Thomas is dishonest. She shares an honest response to an article about inappropriate and illegal behavior. We can all share examples of that across the political spectrum. As an example, to call her dishonest with such ease is part of the problem with how we have these conversations.

  • Yes, shame,
  • Posted by Matthew Hurtt , Campus Services Coordinator at CampusReform.org on February 11, 2010 at 8:45am EST
  • Clearly, Mrs. Holt-Shannon didn't read Miss Thomas' piece and my complete response.

    Thomas' initial premise, that these individuals who may or may not have carried out illegal activity (remember, innoncent until proven guilty under our legal system) were "students" in a university is completely and totally false.

    Furthernore, Miss Thomas seems to suggest that conservatives advocate that activists carry out illegal activity. As an avowed conservative, I can say that under no circumstances has anyone ever suggested I do something illegal to advance my philosophy. As one who trains conservatives, I have never once advocated that other conservatives do anything illegal. The realm of legality is neither conservative or liberal and applies equally to those who are liberal and conservative.

    But, if we're talking about students (and you seem to ignore the illustrations I provided), then let me remind you:

    1. At UNC Chapel Hill, liberal students violently disrupted a presentation by former Congressman Tom Tancredo. Students who disagreed, rather than allowing Tancredo to speak, broke windows, shouted Tancredo down, and forced Tancredo to end his presentation.

    2. At Providence College in Rhode Island, conservative students were denied the right to organize by the Student Government Association because of their conservative platform. Rather than allowing for another opinion, the members of the SGA silenced the voice of opposition.

    3. At the University of Indiana at Bloomington, a board which selects and pays for speakers to address students paid embattled former Senator John Edwards $40,000 to speak. When students asked the board to pay $4,000 to attract noted historian and economist Tom Woods, the board denied the request. Woods holds degrees from both Harvard and Columbia and is a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The board cited his lack of credentials.

    Countless stories exist like this on university campuses across the nation. Miss Thomas suggests that she yearns for some honest political discourse, then singles out conservatives who want to simply bring balance to Academia. She scolds conservatives for researching contribution records or illustrating the overwhelming liberal bias in the classroom, but refuses to even acknowledge the three examples I've provided about conservative students being marginalized on campus.

    Yes, Mrs. Holt-Shannon, it is a shame that you and Miss Thomas are so blinded by your ideology that you fail to see the university as what it should be: a marketplace for ideas. Rather, you see it as a shop to peddle your ideology with no regard for diverse or dissenting opinion. You should both be ashamed of yourselves for your intellectual dishonesty and your blatant disregard for honest political discourse.

    Now, an appropriate response would attempt to justify the three scenarios I provided, rather than ignore them and deflect to your now-proven false assertion. I eagerly await your response. Suggesting conservative students carry out illegal behavior on university campuses is simply a distraction you have now both used to ignore the real issue here. And to call me "part of the problem" only helps to justify your ignorance.

    For more examples of how the liberal vanguard blocks conservative thought on campus, check out http://www.campusreform.org

  • Pete Peterson
  • Posted by DFS on February 11, 2010 at 5:15pm EST
  • Wrong questions.

    From whose hands do pies fly?

  • Posted by Sandy Heierbacher , Director at National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD) on February 13, 2010 at 11:30am EST
  • Matthew -

    The real issue at hand, to you, is how the liberal vanguard blocks conservative thought on campus? And how the university is being stifled as a true marketplace of ideas as a result?

    I almost feel like you could write the same article that Nancy Thomas did, but change the examples at the beginning (to include the examples you shared in your comments about liberal students acting out and stifling discourse) and still make the same basic points: that we need more opportunities on campus to really delve into contentious issues from all perspectives, and that students need to learn democracy-related skills in order to find more healthy, civil and productive ways of dealing with differences in political opinion. It's obvious to me that the liberal students in your examples need as much help finding a healthier, more effective way to address their concerns and express their opinions as the conservative students (or non-students) in Nancy's examples.

    Do you agree, or disagree? I'm curious.

  • Posted by Michele Holt-Shannon , Discovery at University of New Hampshire on February 15, 2010 at 1:00pm EST
  • Thank you, Sandy. I agree and await a response.

    This will be my final response as I do not plan to write in again. This is not my preferred forum and I am new and uncomfortable with electronic posting. I have spent, and plan to spend, hours in face to face conversation with those with whom I disagree. Most of these conversations occur on college campuses and many are out in the community as well.

    Matthew, I think it helps your pursuits if you can imagine me as someone who is “blinded by ideology.” If you can decide this is true, it means you don’t need to consider me and my opinions and my experiences. Nowhere in my posts did I ever suggest liberal students don’t do inappropriate things - Exactly the opposite. Since you have chosen to focus on me as a person rather than my ideas and why I might believe what I believe, I am doubtful that this kind of exchange can be productive. This is a problem with faceless, electronic dialogue compared to face-to-face conversation in which parties with different understandings have the opportunity to trust and learn from each other.

  • Impact and intent
  • Posted by Bob Stains , Senior Vice President at Public Conversations Project on February 16, 2010 at 9:45am EST
  • I think some interesting points have been made here about free speech and constraints on same, the need for critical balance and accurate reporting, and the role of satire and activist tactics in political discourse. I'll leave the actual article behind in my comment because I think it's been well-covered. But I am puzzled, as I often am when reading article comments, at the intentions behind the language in some of them. It seems to me that words like "ignorant", "intellectually dishonest", "you should be ashamed", etc., when applied to individual commenters, have the impact of shutting people down, shutting them up or provoking a symmetrical accusatory response. Certainly not being more open to the ideas of the writer. But I only have my "if that were me being commented on" reaction to go by. I really don't know if that's what the commenters had in mind. So, I wonder: what was the intention behind this language? What kinds of responses were the writers hoping for? I'm not asking as a set up for a lecture on "civil discourse"; I'm just curious about the intent.

  • Posted by Lane McLelland , New College at University of Alabama on February 18, 2010 at 12:00pm EST
  •  

     

     

    Internet exchange is a challenge for me generally, but I want to commend Nancy Thomas for starting this conversation, and the rest of you for entering into it. It strikes me you have been willing to participate in an exercise on the very topic you are discussing – balancing free speech with genuine respect. It’s not an easy discussion, particularly, as Michelle notes, when doing so on the internet removes us that much more from a source which connects us – our experience of each other as human beings. I offer only the perspective of one who is learning more from listening to you than has anything to add. Particularly, I’m coming away from this wanting to explore the point of when satire ends and shutting someone down, and thus out, begins. It seems most appropriate to ask those who are the subjects of the political satire what their experience of that is. Anyone?

     

  • Posted by David Schoem on February 18, 2010 at 5:30pm EST
  • Nancy Thomas writes: "Higher education need to be more intentional about creating places where free, open, reasoned, and respectful speech takes place and where people’s opinions, including thoughtful conservative perspectives, are heard."

    Nancy Thomas's article argues for a more vibrant democracy today and into the future - in practice and in education - and that we need to be intentional in making certain that our next generations learn in our educational system to be engaged in civic life and skilled in civil public discourse.

    Makes good educational and democratic sense to me!