Cries of “War criminal! Murderer of innocent [Iraqis],” “Blood on your hands … Blood on everybody here,” and “I don’t want to listen to your crap,” from the townspeople impeded Bolton’s efforts to speak. The townspeople were not afraid to interrupt the former ambassador, challenge his record of service in the armed forces and attempt to halt the conversation altogether, thereby interfering with the valuable opportunity to learn from such a distinguished speaker. “If you want to speak, go ahead. I’ll be happy to sit down,” Bolton told a particularly vocal protestor. Bolton’s cool and composed response in face of harsh and unruly criticism only served to elevate his respectability and credibility, while making the protestors appear fanatical.
I would like to think the Bolton case was an isolated instance. I would like to think distinguished — if controversial — visitors can come to the College and partake in open and thoughtful academic dialogue without fear of facing a belligerent Amherst jury. But last Tuesday night’s lecture featuring Dennis Ross, a top Middle East advisor to presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, indicated otherwise.
While the townspeople managed to keep their emotions to themselves for the duration of Ross’s lecture, lackluster control of the Q&A portion of the discussion allowed townspeople to pose self-serving, disrespectful and often combative questions to Ross, making it clear that they were unwilling to give his answers any credence. They used Ross’s lecture not as a chance to learn, but as a platform for advancing their own agendas.
This is not to say that we should accept all outside speakers’ views as fact or that we should not ask provocative questions of speakers who may or may not have questionable and/or dubious views. But nasty interruptions and pugnacious, antagonistic interrogations of the College’s guests simply cannot stand.
The boos Amherst students showered on the unruly townspeople in both cases as the protestors attempted to hijack productive discussion, in addition to the uproarious applause that followed President Tony Marx’s response to one particularly rambunctious heckler at Bolton’s talk — “If America stands for anything, it stands for freedom of speech” — and their general decorum during the lectures demonstrate that Amherst students are ready and eager to engage in cordial and thought-provoking dialogue with America’s leaders regarding difficult issues.
As a member of this paper’s Editorial Board when Bolton delivered his lecture, I helped author the editorial that appeared the following day. We said, “Part of being liberal — or liberally educated — means having the self-confidence and courage to confront ideas and viewpoints different from our own with open minds, and the ability to engage with others thoughtfully, paying respect to the opposing side while maintaining the dignity of our own.”
Barring townspeople from Amherst’s lectures is not the answer. We are a private college with a public mission of service to the world beyond our borders. Just as we benefit from the townspeople’s hard work in creating a vibrant community, so too should they gain from us. Still, Amherst is a college and, as such, its primary responsibility is to its students. It’s a shame that poor management of the Q&A allowed so many adults and so few yearning students (hands still raised as the lecture ended) to ask questions.
While we cannot and should not ban townspeople — many of whom are just as polite and respectful as Amherst students, if not more so — from attending our events, we should demand that all audience members give the College’s guests the respect and hospitality they deserve. Furthermore, as an educational institution whose first obligation is to its students, the College should proactively ensure that students ask the majority of the questions.
Witnessing how not to behave certainly has value. We learn from bad examples that, when confronting those with whom we may vehemently disagree, we should conduct ourselves with civility and in a manner indicative of a profound understanding of the issues at hand. After all, only then will we give justice to the free speech and open dialogue that we say we celebrate. For now, at least, let’s learn from the past and work to inhibit any repeat performances.