Squelch

From the New York Times today I learned about the controversy involving Rebecca Journey’s course “The Problem of Whiteness” at the University of Chicago (my alma mater).

Like many, if not most, modern controversies, this one begins with a misunderstanding (whether innocent or contrived, I will reserve judgment). Without full access to Prof. Journey’s mind, I will nonetheless hazard a guess that, in naming her course “The Problem of Whiteness,” she was not saying that whiteness is ipso facto a problem; that you, for instance, if you are white, are a problem (i.e., something that, in the vernacular, “makes things worse”). Yet it could easily be read that way, even by someone with no ax to grind. If Prof. Journey intended to be provocative, she unfortunately gave a golden opportunity to a provocateur.

Snell-Hitchcock Hall, where I bedded down for two years. (Photo credit: Bryce Lanham, Wikimedia Commons)

With five years of the U of C under my belt,* it is easy for me to read the course title as dealing with a problem in the sense of the four-color problem (in mathematics), or the problem of extreme income disparity (in economics and political science).** I would be very interested in examining the notion of “whiteness”: when and how did it arise? How has the concept evolved? How is the term used, and by whom, and for what reasons? What are the social and political consequences of “whiteness”? Similar questions have been asked about “blackness,” and about the concept of “race” in general. I am acquainted with various attempts to address these questions, much to my benefit, I believe, as a conscious (or at least aspiringly conscious) person of the 21st century.

And so: perhaps Prof. Journey could rename her course: “What is White?” Or simply: “Whiteness.” Something bland. Something “academic.” More cautious. Careful. More in keeping with University of Chicago style. /snark (Did I mention I’m a “product” of this venerable institution? Self-snarking goes with the territory.) Perhaps a course with such an anodyne title could fly under the radar of the self-proclaimed defenders of Free Speech (sweet Jesus, the Irony, it howls and rages and won’t go away). At any rate, it would not invite mind-numblingly stupid, time-wasting controversy.

It appears the university has taken steps to protect Prof. Journey’s person and privacy, and has affirmed her right to teach the course. These actions are commendable, but fall short. Why? Because the course has disappeared, perhaps forever. It is clearly a course that would expand the horizons of tuition-paying students who wish to take it. It has been driven from the classroom by the modern equivalent of a torch- and pitchfork-carrying mob. It is, in quasi-technical parlance, a crying shame.

It should be obvious by now that the “Chicago statement” on freedom of expression needs to be updated. It should be obvious that the “information wars” that are being waged nowadays are asymmetrical. The university lectern is no match for the global megaphone of any yahoo with an internet connection and a handful of social media accounts, coupled with a highly lucrative system of grievance amplification (Fox News, Breitbart, The Daily Caller—all mentioned by Schmidt when interviewed by the Times). I imagine those who drafted the statement have never personally experienced modern cyberharassment. I would urge them to put on their empathy caps and try to understand it more fully.

The question arises: what to do about a person like Daniel Schmidt, a member of the University of Chicago community who, in the name of free speech, succeeds in squelching it in his own institution? While the student newspaper, The Chicago Maroon, was able to fire him without worrying about “free speech” blowback, the university obviously cannot punish him for posting inflammatory opinions about a course he has not taken. This is the very stuff of modern life: people spouting off online about things they know little or nothing about. Does the university have an obligation to enter the online fray in defense of its faculty? I don’t see that happening, for many reasons, not least of which is the Whack-a-Mole Problem.

Can the university make it an expellable offense to post a faculty member’s or student’s contact information on social media? Schmidt argues that interested people can find that information, as it is publicly available. True. But Schmidt knows the online mob is lazy. Making them do some research is a deterrent—not preventative, just a deterrent. I think it’s a deterrent worth putting in place as a rule of U of C life.

Regardless of what the university decides to do about this and similar situations, I think it needs to publicly acknowledge (and broadcast widely) that what Schmidt did is an abuse of the “Chicago statement”; that it had the effect of shutting down legitimate academic speech; that it is abusive on the personal level; and that such behavior should find no quarter in an institution devoted to the free, peaceful, well-informed, and well-intentioned exchange of ideas. It also wouldn’t hurt it the university included the following in its statement of free speech principles: “A cherished attribute of life at the University of Chicago is intellectual humility.” It may not have an effect on a person like Daniel Schmidt, but it would be nice if the university said it out loud. It is what allows us to politely listen to ideas that strike us as strange or wrong or even dangerous. It is what allows us to learn. As an undergraduate I politely read and regurgitated the ideas of U of C economists. Some fifty years out I don’t espouse Chicago School economics. But I learned something back then. That used to be the point of going to college.

__________
* And you can easily guess approximately when that was by my use of U of C rather than the currently fashionable, undoubtedly mandated UChicago.

** This assumes that, even if one is a fan of extreme income disparity, one might be willing to entertain the proposition that there are side effects of this disparity that might need to be addressed—e.g., social instability (hence, a problem to be investigated academically).