"I have been really impressed with the conduct of the campus over the past few days," began Marx, who praised the manner in which protesters expressed their dissent and attempted to spark discussion at the College. "I will defend and protect the right of [members of the College community] to protest in this or any other way, as long as it is non-disruptive. It is essential to engage in debate in order to expand and revise our opinions," he continued.
After the discussion, Conor Clark '07 explained that one focus of the discussion was whether administrators should have welcomed Scalia on campus. "The discussion shifted almost immediately from the content of Scalia's presentation towards the appropriateness of Scalia's coming," he said.
Russell Kornblith '06 questioned whether Scalia's political views were too offensive to members of the student body to be appropriate in a lecture. "Should we be bringing in ... someone whose views clearly exceeded the acceptable sphere of discourse [on campus]?" Kornblith asked Marx. Kornblith cited the fact that Scalia's views on issues such as homosexuality violate the College's Statement of Respect for Persons.
"Scalia is a sitting justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I consider understanding his views, whether to agree with them or to challenge them, important," Marx said in response. "Ignoring one of the nine voices that gets to decide the law of the land … seems to be a refusal to engage with the world we live in."
Marx asked the audience whether College administrators ought to set standards for the speakers that are invited to campus, and if so, what the standards should be. Some students voiced the belief that it is essential to invite contradictory speakers to the College. Will Havemann '07 explained it is impossible to create standards without first hearing how speakers of a variety of viewpoints express themselves. "The only way we'll know what rules we should set up for [the College community] is by hearing people who do and do not live by these rules."
Rob Cobbs '06 agreed. "If we refuse to listen to people with extremist views, it seems like we're disengaging … [and] drawing back into our bubble," he said.
Mike Simmons '06E expressed his disappointment with "people on the right and the left pointing fingers." Simmons said that a better response would be to "respect [the speaker], listen to [the speaker], disagree, and go on. ... I want to see speakers on campus with well-developed arguments, who are ready to debate with me," he added.
Theodore Hertzberg '04 quoted from the College's Statement on Diversity to explain the academic necessity of listening to Scalia and other speakers with extreme viewpoints. "Teaching and learning at their best are conversations with people other than ourselves about ideas other than our own," he read.
Professor of Sociology Jerry Himmelstein explained that it becomes easier to remember one's own beliefs when such beliefs are directly challenged. "One of the best ways to reaffirm sacred beliefs is to [hear] someone in clear opposition [to those beliefs]. Also, [I think] those beliefs are pretty deeply held [by the College community]," he said. "I don't think Scalia, or ten Scalias, can change those beliefs."
Students and faculty also discussed a letter published in The Student in which 16 professors stated they would not attend the lecture. Marx said he was sorry the professors did not attend, but respected their right to make that decision. "I did regret the choice of those [professors] who refused to attend … not because I believe they would have or could have changed the views of Justice Scalia," Marx said. "What concerns me is [the] shaping of the minds of the other 700 people in the room."
Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science Austin Sarat, one of the professors who signed the letter, explained his rationale. "I signed the letter enthusiastically," he said. "I think what Scalia represents is not civil discourse. … It's not debatable … that gay students on this campus have a right not to be discriminated against. ... I feel that it would not advance education to have a 'performance' [by Scalia] in the chapel," he said. "To say that anyone was deprived of … the thirty seconds that [a professor] would have had before Justice Scalia interrupted them is, respectfully, nonsense."
Professor of Political Science Hadley Arkes was happy with the discussion. "I was a bit surprised, and pleased, that most of the comments from students [last] Wednesday were in the direction of wishing to hear Justice Scalia, and expressing puzzlement, if not a certain disdain, for those who would have barred him from the campus-and barred other people from hearing him," he said. "In short, the event came off peacefully. Students came to find something engaging and even instructive in Antonin Scalia; and on the other hand, a good number of students, joined by some of their teachers, managed to debase themselves. Regrettably, the good parts of the occasion will not efface the intolerance and hatred, and other unlovely things, revealed about people on this campus."