A university president makes a case against cowardice

Oh hey, Wesleyan on HN! I’m an alumnus (matriculated a year or two after Roth became president). Wesleyan has a rich history of activism and protest, and not always entirely peaceful (Roth’s predecessor, Doug Bennet, had his office firebombed at one point).

I’ve had a few opportunities to speak with Roth since the Gaza war started, and I’ve always found him particularly thoughtful about balancing freedom of expression with a need to provide a safe and open learning environment for everyone on campus. In particular, he never gave in to the unlimited demands of protestors while still defending their right to protest.

In part, he had the moral weight to do that because—unlike many university presidents—he did not give in to the illiberal demands of the left to chill speech post-2020, which then were turned against the left over the past year.

I don’t see any particularly good outcome from any of this; the risk of damaging the incredibly successful American university system is high. Certainly smart foreign students who long dreamed of studying in the US will be having second thoughts if they can be arbitrarily and indefinitely detained.

But I hope the universities that do make it through do with a stronger commitment to the (small l) liberal values of freedom of expression , academic freedom, and intellectual diversity.

Reminder to anyone triggered by a “both sides” comment:

just like you, we are all aware of how the sides are different, it is valid to be more annoyed by the ways they are the same

> it is valid to be more annoyed by the ways they are the same

Is it? One side has a vocal minority who took defense of minorities to the point of harassment and was ultimately rebuffed. The other side controls the government and is enthusiastically renditioning legal residents to prisons and defying the constitution and courts to keep doing it.

To be more upset about both sides being imperfect than the injustice of irreversible deportations to foreign prison seems ... absurd.

all parties are beneficiaries of the institutional structures that allow for a party to do those things

so the things you are bothered by and demand everyone to prioritize are actually solved by addressing the underlying mechanisms, as opposed to simply trying to propagate your preferred party's numbers

something... both sides... might actually be into. if the other party is afraid of the opposition party doing the same thing to different people, then there might actually be overwhelming consensus to change the thing that a "both sides" person is trying to point out

I'm making no demands. Only pointing out an absurd false equivalence.

Change to the polarizing system would be great. I doubt that will happen by softening protests to obscene injustice. Rather it's likely to reenforce the shifting Overton window further into authoritarianism and kleptocracy.

To break the two party system we need things a large portion of the populous has been (falsely) taught are bad for them: same day primaries, ranked choice voting, making campaign bribery illegal, unwinding corporate personhood, etc. Can you guess which side is most attached to the system of political machines and the lies that reinforce them?

> if any party can do something you are afraid of, focus on the enabling factors that allows them to do that

Perhaps you can enlighten me what these enabling factors are? Because I thought vigorous debate, a free press, and a balance of power between branches of government were the controls; not what enables problematic politics.

Yet it would appear criticism is increasingly cause for expulsion, journalism seen as a justification for lawfare, and that 2.5 of the 3 branches have been captured by an irrational fear and a cult-like trust in a second rate celebrity.

> we can bridge consensus on what everyone is afraid the other party might leverage

Can we? Within my circle those leaning right are too wedded to their tribe affiliation to see the hypocrisy and inconsistencies in their conclusions. If they are unwilling to agree on a consistent set of rules for all then there won't be consensus.

> Perhaps you can enlighten me what these enabling factors are?

Sure, yeah

So both parties accept campaign donations and quid pro quo for the support of Political Action Committees that support them.

Both parties are beneficiaries of a toothless Federal Election Committee enabling non-compliance with the stated regulations, with any remaining accountability existing upon shaky legal ground, completely nullified when in front of a court like with Citizens United. there might be enough consensus for a constitutional amendment though.

Both parties trade securities with material non public information that they can influence, representatives and constituents of any affiliation are not pleased with this. But it is a prisoner's dilemma in the legislative process, there might be enough consensus for a constitutional amendment though.

Presidents of both parties have leveraged the pardon power preemptively and at their discretion, unsettling constituents and representatives on all sides. Revealing a discomfort that is enabled by an archaic aspect of the constitution. Go for it, prioritize a campaign to amend that.

You see the common theme here is that you have to prioritize these causes, over simply being a powerless opposition party going to marches for things that will never gain consensus or that the current power in power will never be held accountable for.

The 17th amendment for directly electing our senators was done in a vacuum. And this likely broke many pillars of our constitution by not also addressing what the senators do, and how that chamber interfaces with the rest of the country. Being appointed likely wasn't better, just more cohesive with the rest of this constitution. Right now we see the folly and redundancy of the Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation process to federal agencies and other position. Should probably amend that too.

All good ideas. Let's do them too. Instead of dismissing the differences between the choices we have today as inconsequential.