As one of the last conservatives to have ever taught at
Williams College, I feel
vindicated in reporting that this once prestigious school has now devolved into a form of mob rule. Based on the aggressive language used to intimidate students like
Zach
Wood, it looks to me like the college is now dominated by hard leftists who
have more in common with Joseph Stalin than with FDR. Under this radical,
threatening regime, we have seen a stunning failure to provide adequate
security for anti-feminist speaker
Susan Venker, the outright
censorship of race realist
John
Derbyshire, and the inexplicable tolerance of anti-Semitic hate speech from
Palestinian-American poet
Remi
Kanazi.
Trust me. I understand mob rule and the role of censorship.
I’m a former Communist
myself.
I’m also well informed about the continuing dysfunction and lack of
intellectual diversity at Williams College.
As you may know, I was among the first young, white, professors at
Williams College to pay a high price for for teaching politically incorrect
ideas including how black poverty and inequality would be more efficiently resolved
with the improved use of inexpensive condoms than with the wholesale adoption
of a socialist economy. Then, as now, my ideas caused howls of indignation and
immediate accusations of racism among supposedly liberal folks who -- by tradition, at least -- should have been
more concerned about protecting my freedom of speech. As James Lewis writes at
American Thinker:
We can never forget that U.S.
‘liberals” of this generation are not liberals at all; they have fallen back
into ruthless Leftism, just like the old days of Joe Stalin. This is the Left
that threw Lawrence Summers out as president of Harvard for wondering out loud
whether some boys are just better in math than girls. This is the Left that
keeps imposing ever-harsher speech and behavior codes on college students, with
white guys as the official scapegoats. This Left manipulates universities by
mob threats. This is the Left that tried to physically attack General David
Petraeus at NYU, so he had to run for it. This is the Left that deliberately stirs
up race hatred, as in Ferguson and Baltimore. This is the Left that has made
common cause with primitive jihadist regimes in Europe and the U.S.
As one of only three Republicans teaching at Williams
College in the 1980s, I was quickly marginalized for suggesting that white
attitudes and U.S. capitalism inadequately explained why violent crimes are
disproportionately committed by blacks. According to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, blacks were charged with 62% of all robberies, 57% of murders and
45% of assaults in the 75 largest U.S. counties in 2009, though they made up
roughly 15% of the population there. It strikes me as nothing less than ideological
blindness to insist that such extraordinary violence is the unfortunate result
of peaceful white folks living ordinary lives in our nation’s rural and suburban
areas.
In this context, I’m shocked by the sheer ignorance of
Williams College’s president, Adam Falk. I don’t think there is a serious
person who has studied John Derbyshire who would classify him as either
idiotic, a lunatic, or a white supremacist. In my view, Falk’s flippant,
juvenile
comments
are uninformed, and display a profound level of misunderstanding about race
realism, political culture studies and alt-right philosophy.
The simplest explanation for his mistreatment of John
Derbyshire is that this is the sort of mistake that happens when physicists get
involved in political and biological matters for which they have no training or
relevant experience. While most faculty members are experts in our own fields,
we tend to be hapless amateurs everywhere else.
There is, however, a more complex explanation that goes to
the heart at why mob rule is the order of the day at Williams College. If there
were more diversity of opinion, and freedom of thought, at Williams College,
then someone could have informed Falk that censoring John Derbyshire was a big
mistake and a setback for Williams College.
The reason there is no intellectual diversity at Williams
College is because conservative, Republican thinkers have long since been pushed
out of the full-time faculty. I should
know. While I taught at Williams College, it was said that conservative
students were passive and not very active. It was suggested that there was not
much interest in conservative thought on the campus. Certainly not enough
interest in conservative thought to spend time worrying about the intellectual
diversity of the faculty in the political science department.
Nevertheless, in less than a year, the campus saw a
veritable renaissance of conservative activities and thought as conservative
students – with my support and active encouragement – established a
conservative newspaper, a conservative radio show, and a conservative
television show on the local cable access channel. We had qualified speakers at
the Garfield Republican Club. The conservative students rallied around my
office, which I decorated with a large American flag. We went out of our way to
tick off the liberal/Communist professors by loudly greeting each other with hearty
cries of “Merry Christmas.” Ironically, an independent study conducted of the
political science department recommended changes be made to address the
department’s lack of ideological diversity.
As far as I can tell, I am the last registered Republican to
have ever taught in the political science department at Williams College as a tenured or tenure track professor. I am
certainly the last to have ever publicly espoused consistently conservative views from a
sincere, heartfelt perspective. I am also, apparently, the first and only
assistant professor who was denied the opportunity to continue along the tenure
track pathway.
This itself is quite odd, since, in the 1980s, I was one of
our nation’s top young scholars. Hired at Williams in 1986, I went on to win
national recognition for my doctoral dissertation from the American Political
Science Association (APSA). I completed my dissertation during my first year
teaching at Williams College. The quality of this work was so great that it has
now been published, in book form, almost exactly as I wrote it under the low-ceiling
of my tiny, unheated office in Stetson Hall. My thesis was by published by
Praeger, the extraordinary house that also published Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. Apparently,
the study, which documented a lack of ideological diversity at Williams College,
has had little impact then or since.
Even as the nation has drifted in a conservative direction
-- overwhelmingly electing conservatives to statehouses, governorships and
Congress -- Williams College has held tight to teaching a narrow band of truth
and lies. It clings to an unrealistic and unsustainable hard left faith that intentions
are more important than reality. Accordingly, it will be a long time until we
see an end to mirco-aggression monitors who eagerly to hunt down the unwitting first-
year student who is stupid enough to tell a joke, have some
fun, or say something devastatingly obvious. We are in a dangerous time. The hard
left mob feels justified in every possible abuse while truth remains as
vulnerable as any bunkmate of Ivan Denisovich.
This article was first published at williamsalternative.com on March 6, 2016. It appears here with the permission of that website’s owner.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
Whenever there is a hot issue, I naturally go to the main websites where I find knowledgeable conservatives offering objective information.
