Liberalism and the storm

At Columbia, “liberal” carries many meanings. It can refer to the type of education we receive, one that seeks to expand general knowledge and experience. It can refer to the ideological undercurrent of that education, a mentality that is accepting of new behaviors or opinions and willing to discard traditional values. And it also describes the political project of the University as an institution that is favorable to or respectful of individual rights. These definitions encompass a great deal of what it means to be a Columbia student. Our experiences in the classroom and in the wider community are derivative of a cultural commitment to a multi-faceted liberalism. But in recent controversies, different well-intentioned actors have misapplied liberal ideals, overstating the role of rights in their advocacies and potentially diminishing the utility of our education.

Given that we pursue a liberal education in a liberal democracy, our personal beliefs are accommodated with incredible consistency. It is a singular luxury to live in a country where there is presumed harmony between the interests of the individual and the interests of the state. It follows that at Columbia, the interests and beliefs of the student body are principal to the interests and beliefs of the University. We have seen this fact borne out in several recent controversies. Last year, in the deliberations over the reinstatement of ROTC, the Columbia community considered whether or not the presence of ROTC on campus would be consistent with the various liberal aims of the school. In September, there was an outcry over plans for members of Columbia International Relations Council and Association students to attend a dinner with the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And just this month, a Barnard student has raised allegations of discrimination, saying she was “steered” away from taking a course with a professor whose views might offend her.

In each of these episodes, rights advocates voiced overlapping concerns. For example, in a statement on the ROTC debate, members of Columbia faculty claimed that “in uniform, individuals are representatives of the military before all else, and their presence constitutes a symbolic militarization of campus.” This representation was believed to be antithetical to the aims of Columbia in so far as it would require us to bid farewell to unhindered thought. Echoing these sentiments, the Sept. 18 Spectator staff editorial on CIRCA’s plan to attend the Ahmadinejad dinner described the central conflict of such controversies as one between “freedom of speech and association, and a respect for human rights.” But as much as freedom of speech is a subset of the larger category of human rights, the real issue at hand is how the University’s commitment to promoting “rights” should be handled when rights come into conflict, or when violations seem justifiable.

In an Oct. 6 editorial, professors Awi Federgruen and Judith Jacobson explored the Barnard “steering” controversy and rightly suggested that “students should not go to college if they are seeking only to be intellectually ‘comfortable.’ Professors have a responsibility to challenge students’ beliefs.” The authors qualify their statement by noting that the challenge must be “evidence-based and not personally demeaning.” But further arguing that the incidence of steering both “deprives [some students] of the opportunity for an educational experience that is available to all other students” and also “protects the professor from exposure” reveals a flawed logic. Because of a fixation with protecting liberal rights absolutely, Federgruen and Jacobson fail to see that at the point at which steering allegedly occurred, the student still had the ability to take the class. And by Federgruen and Jacobson’s own account, she ought to have taken it, either to be challenged or to expose the professor (assuming he met the arbitrary threshold for “harassment”). In this way, the issue of steering is an example of liberalism as a distraction.

Aeschylus once wrote, “I’m not afraid of storms, for I’m learning to sail my ship.” His words perfectly capture the reality that a complete education requires a passage through intellectually difficult and inherently discomforting experiences. The “real world” is toxic to the idealist-liberalist. For our education to be practical, we need to thoughtfully and purposefully engage with intellectually threatening people and groups, because these are the people we will have to confront now and forever in the pursuit of positive change. If we do not engage, we risk becoming effete in the worst of ways—not in the way the word superficially describes the “liberal elite,” but in the very real way that renders us ineffective social actors without the credibility to lead. To be truly wise is to confront the soldier, the mercurial dictator, and the biased professor and engage them with an intellectual purpose. Metaphorically speaking, avoiding the storm today leaves us ill prepared for the necessity of enduring the storm tomorrow.

Esfandyar Batmanghelidj is a Columbia College sophomore. He is a member of the rugby team. Institution Rules runs alternate Thursdays.