By: Omar K. Elmore, Staff Writer
On Feb. 27, 2017, the Campus Union assembly passed a bill titled “A Resolution in Support of Free Speech at Wofford College.” After deliberation, the bill passed 16-15, the tightest vote I have seen in my time on Campus Union.
I am one of the 15 who voted against the bill and, in talking to the other dissenters, I feel obligated to explain why. In the round of debate that pretenses any vote in Campus Union, many questions arose regarding this bill. I think the main critique can be simplified as such:
The “Resolution for Free Speech” is not about free speech.
Though packaged like a simple statement affirming the open expression of ideas at Wofford, this bill is, somewhat ironically, merely an unthoughtful response to a statement with which the writers of the bill disagreed. The statement in question is President Samhat’s response to the original travel ban issued by President Trump. In the statement, emailed to all students, faculty and staff on Jan. 30, 2017, Samhat calls for the ban to end quickly as it stands “in direct conflict with the values we hold dear at Wofford College.”
The “Resolution for Free Speech” was drafted with good intentions; Hunter Windham and those that helped him prepare the bill read Samhat’s statement as a political posture that, by stating a political policy inherently exists against the ideals of the college, ended the conversation and debate regarding the topic at hand and alienated those that may agree with the policy. The resolution notes that the statement created an environment that allowed professors to deny students their right to express themselves. As a result, the bill’s therefore clause calls on the school to avoid taking any stance on any “moral, political or social issue.”
I believe this resolution is reactionary and careless. The problem doesn’t appear to stem from President Samhat merely issuing a statement; it seems the problem is Samhat releasing a statement that these particular students don’t agree with. As such, I think those students acted quickly but not effectively, to prevent another similar situation in the future. In doing this, the bill ignores the heart of Samhat’s statement by taking one specific line greatly out of context. Part of the resolution reads:
“Whereas President Samhat’s statement on President Trump’s executive order is praiseworthy in its defense of any Wofford students, professors, or others affected by the executive order, it also contains a line stating, ‘this executive order is in direct conflict with the values we hold dear at Wofford College.’”
The resolution goes on to tie this quoted portion to a political stance which is, in the very least, a dishonest reading of the statement. Prior to the chosen line, the statement explains what values to which Samhat is referring:
“Wofford College’s mission is to provide a superior liberal arts education that prepares students for extraordinary and positive contributions to society. The focus of Wofford’s mission is upon fostering commitment to excellence in character, performance, leadership, service to others and lifelong learning. The participation and influence of students, faculty, staff and alumni who have come to our campus from around the globe is integral to our success in providing this breadth and depth of learning. While national security concerns and the strength of our country’s visa system remain important topics of discussion and debate, this executive order is in direct conflict with the values we hold dear at Wofford College.”
This statement clearly has nothing to with one political side or the other. Rather, the values referenced here are at the heart of any institution of higher learning, a bipartisan matter. A free flow of ideas is an integral part of education as a whole, not just at Wofford College, which is why hundreds of other schools issued statements that echoed the sentiments of Samhat’s message. Further, Samhat explained his statement to the Campus Union assembly after seeing the uproar on social media surrounding it. He told us that, as someone who has studied political science, he would never be vague in expressing his political opinions. He went on to defend his obligation to students, faculty and staff in protecting them when he deems it necessary and, considering the travel ban threatened not just education in the abstract but also affected students directly, he felt it was his right and duty to address the order.
All of this is to say that taking one line from a nuanced statement out of context is careless and misleading. The resolution ignored both Samhat’s own words in describing his statement and the clear support of “discussion and debate” that appears in the very same sentence as the divisive line quoted in the text of the bill.
The conclusion that, because of Samhat’s assumed position, Wofford should remain silent on any moral, social or political issue is a naïve one. Does Wofford’s very existence not depend on the free flow of ideas? Does a stoppage in travel not prevent ideas from spreading? In a more general sense, is it not the school’s responsibility to take a stance on certain moral issues such as sexual assault or discrimination?
Sure, taking a stance against these things may affect students who disagree but, in these cases, is that really such a bad thing? Wofford stands against discrimination based on race, religion and economic class—do we want the college to remain neutral about that moral issue?
In speaking with Windham after the vote, it seems we fundamentally disagree on this very question. Windham believes that a school should remain completely neutral to avoid alienating even the most extreme individuals on either side of a given discussion to allow for students to have those debates and reach their own conclusions. I think that there are certain issues that a school must take a stance on to provide a welcome environment for differing viewpoints to all who gather, and, by remaining neutral on fundamental moral questions, the school would inherently alienate many students from even having the chance to debate.
I don’t know that either of us is completely right or completely wrong, but I do know that we are both pleased that we could talk civilly about this issue in Campus Union and beyond.
An important part of the resolution references certain professors stifling debate amongst students and that is something that must be addressed. However, there is no proof, anecdotal or otherwise, that Samhat’s statement had any sway in creating these dilemmas. Had this bill actually addressed these concerns regarding debate and expression it would not have been such a narrow vote.
We 15 did not vote against the idea of free speech—obviously, we all count on this freedom daily as we work to become citizens of a diverse world. We simply disagreed with the root of the bill which seems to spin a statement about education into an unnecessary political challenge. President Samhat’s statement was a piece of the ongoing debate regarding travel and security but only a piece; his statement was never meant to be an end to the conversation and, if one were to read it in its entirety, one would realize that it not only leaves room for discussion but also encourages it.
