Disagreement in Good Will

On MLK Day my upper year, Kenji Yoshino delivered the most highly-regarded keynote address during my time at Exeter. In an artful and well-written speech, Yoshino campaigned for the legalization of same-sex marriage through the idea that we should all fully embrace our identities and fight back against the “covering” of our true selves. Most students seemed to have no problem logically concluding that in the spirit of tolerance and equality that motivated, for example, for the organizers of the voter registration drives of the 60s, it makes sense to incorporate the issue of same-sex marriage into MLK Day. Meanwhile, the student and faculty bodies are, at least superficially, in near-perfect consensus that opposing same-sex marriage is morally equivalent to being in the KKK. Everything I learned at four MLK Days taught me that the presented issues were one and the same as the ideals fought for by King.

When an institution takes the widely held ideals of an assassinated man and gradually stirs in other messages, however well-intentioned, it enters the uncomfortable territory of appropriating his legacy. Between the end of slavery and the death of Martin Luther King, there were approximately 4,730 recorded African-American lynchings, no doubt a gross underestimate. The events of the last year, whether in Missouri or New York, have shown us that racial tensions are still flaring. This was what MLK fought against. With great care, we can indeed expand the compass of his legacy to include other causes, as has been done, in a way that no one would call misappropriation, with issues like rape in the military (MLK Day 2014) and the suicide of gay Rutgers student and cyberbullying victim Tyler Clementi (MLK Day 2011).

But when MLK Day is used as a chance to talk about how the speaker reaches orgasm (Scott Turner Schofield, transgender activist and MLK Day speaker in 2012, whose memorable line of “There’s oral sex, there’s manual sex, there are strap-ons… You just have to be creative!” was met with cheers), or even when someone like Yoshino argues eloquently for the human need for self-expression and validation of one’s identity through marriage, we are conflating multiple social movements. However well-intentioned I’d like to think the organizers are, this is disingenuous at best and deceptive at worst. The problem is that we are becoming confused about exactly what King’s legacy is. There seem to be two alternate views: one is that he represented the ideal that no one should be subjected to physical violence or segregation because of the color of their skin or other innate characteristics. The other holds that, in the spirit of non-discrimination, we should never judge another person, and that the governing philosophy in life should be ‘whatever floats your boat.’ It would be interesting and perhaps even edifying to dedicate another class-free day of workshops to the second legacy, but as I see it, students of goodwill who would be in concordance about the first could disagree about the second.

This brings me to my main point, which actually goes beyond just MLK Day. Frankly, more troubling than the issues of conflation and misappropriation is the issue of artificial consensus and the lack of an atmosphere of intellectual curiosity and debate. Inside the Exeter bubble, it is easy to forget how controversial issues are viewed elsewhere. We sometimes forget that in the rest of America (let alone the rest of the world), same-sex marriage is a hotly debated issue that is far from decided. Current Exonians will be voting in the next presidential election, but rather than being a place where everyone feels comfortable to explore different viewpoints and engage in calm and reasoned debate, Exeter has become a place where young minds are made to conform to the dominant viewpoint. Dissenters risk being lumped together with racists. Yes, free expression of ideas sometimes creates conflict and discomfort, as the Charlie Hebdo attacks showed us. However, when a place of learning cannot tolerate even respectful, non-provocative expression that goes against the grain of the majority opinion, it makes me deeply concerned for Exeter’s future as an elite academic institution.

My critics would say that “no intelligent person” could support the “bigotry” and “homophobia” embraced by opponents of same-sex marriage. Imagine my shock, then, as a freshly minted Exeter graduate when I walk into Princeton’s student activities fair and see the Anscombe Society—a student group which engages the campus in discussions of sexual morality and the issue of same-sex marriage—hosting discussions with gay members of the faculty and student representatives of the LGBT community. With minimal animosity, students can engage one another in honest, intellectual discussions regarding this hot-button issue and come to their own conclusions. One past club president, Sherif Girgi—summa cum laude and PhD at Princeton and a Rhodes Scholar—co-wrote a book defending his traditional view of marriage, without appealing to religion. The group does all of this while still upholding the inherent dignity of homosexuals, and their right to privacy and protection under the law.

Now why should the Exeter administration work toward fostering a similar atmosphere? On a practical level, the lack of debate at PEA makes those students who support same-sex marriage utterly unequipped to deal with formal opposition. Dogmatically held beliefs rarely stand up against those tried and tested by frequent debate. It is easy to simply accept the dominant viewpoint, while reasoned dissent takes effort, thought and true dedication to one’s values in the face of scorn and dismissal. At PEA, dissenters on the marriage issue have two choices—learn to be silent or change their views. In fact, my point here is not about the same-sex marriage issue at all—it is a more general critique of the way we foster learning and the exchange of ideas. The goal of any academic institution should be the pursuit of truth. The truth does not come by royal fiat. The type of unilateral, enforced consensus we have at PEA is the archenemy of true intellectualism and academic growth. The end, after all, depends on the beginning, and truth always begins with reasoned discussion in the spirit of goodness.