I responded with a quick response as I did find it an interesting topic. I am not sure how the debate will play out or whether I will participate. It is scheduled for May 30th, so we will see. In some respects this essay probably should not have been published just yet. . .
Regardless, I was captivated by the topic since reading Motion Debates email. It is simply provocative. Not because of the issue of controversial speakers, but rather because that topic does unveil some ideas on education and our education system. Specifically, the topic allows some insights into education and the relation of free speech to our education system.
For myself it is obvious that controversial speakers offer little at a university. Examples of such speakers include Ann Coulter who most are familiar with, Ben Shapiro who is an American conservative political commentator and writer. His publications include Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth, which he began writing when he was seventeen years old. Charles Murray, the author of The Bell Curve, a controversial book from the 90's which suggested that IQ was genetic and that it, IQ, was also largely prophetic - it was one's fate. He has continued to write largely in that vein. Lastly, I point to Milo Yiannopoulos, the former editor of Breitbart, again author and conservative commentator. He is interesting in that he is gay and yet conservative, which at least is interesting.
I point to ones that are fairly well known. Most are "conservative". They and their ideas are often discussed and pointed to in the media. You can find them on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox often enough. . They are often offered up as public intellectuals. Are they, however, university fare?
The answer is no.
They are entertaining, but they do not, for the most part, offer knowledge. They are entertainers, not educators. They are commentators contributing to a media and entertainment system. They or their ideas might have some standing in our politics. They are not, however, educators, nor are they researchers or scientists. The former are part of a largely for-profit media versus the later, which includes our system of education and scientific research.
I should point out that I am playing with here another tension, which I do not want to dive into, but should be stated. Traditionally, the media has involved both entertainment and news. Today, that distinction is largely blurred. I would argue that historically it has always been blurred. It was only in the recent past that we bifurcated the distinction, but that distinction does haunt us. Regardless, I do not want to argue these points here. The point that I do want to make is that these speakers are of the media and entertainment world, versus the academic or education and scientific research domains.
I have painted a picture of the "controversial speakers". What of the university. I have already given some hints. It is the University which provides an education and likewise offers up scientific research. Most tenured professors are expected to both teach and publish. And their publications are not published with the intent of selling books or generating advertising revenue, Their publications are within peer-reviewed journals focusing on specific domains and areas. These range from Physics to Biology to Philosophy to Women's Studies. Again, the essays found in these journals rarely make it to any best-sellers list. Rather, these essays focus on reporting and documenting the research and studies performed and considered by these people - the professors and faculty of these institutions.
They pursue the truth. I would guess many of them would protest that assertion. To make the claim that they pursue the truth is a big claim. Many would not be ready to use such claims regarding their own research. Not because it is not true, but because most see themselves as part of a larger project and it is that larger project that in fact unveils and reveals truth, and it is a very slow and often tedious process.
To be educated at a university is to be exposed at some level to this project. It is to be exposed to the amount of work required and the potential rewards of that work. One is introduced to the ideas and history, the methods of a domain such as mathematics or political science. Sometimes this is done well, other times it is not. Sometimes what is taught and taken to be true is ultimately wrong. Sometimes what is false is actually taught and embraced. (Another reason why these folks question the value of truth. . .). This system is different in numerous ways from the devices and approaches of media. Both embrace publications, ideas, discussions. Both even offer solutions to ongoing issues and challenges in the world. Yet they are simply different.
Further, I offer that they, the media and the university are mutually exclusive. One is largely truth based and the other is largely profit driven. One must choose between them in some way. The scientific research done in the university simply is not provided via the media. At best, the media reports the facts and offers some limited analysis of those facts. The university not only observes the facts, but it takes those facts and applies various theories and approaches to them, and then tests the conclusions they arrive at again and again and again. And they do this not with the intent of finding an audience but of gaining understanding, of gaining knowledge.
So when I assert that the above controversial speakers distract, I mean they take away from the universities primary mission - to educate. And to educate is to appreciate this process and method of understanding, which the university represents. Now, one could say that these speakers are critics of the university, of the system. A valid and noble point or goal. However, what makes them controversial is less their offerings and more the protests and incidents we hear of happening on campuses and involving their speaking engagements. And it is considering this fact that I say they are a distraction.
In short, the media courtesy, of these speakers, suggest to the public that Universities are corrupt or biased against such speakers, conservative thinkers and the like. I have two responses to that: The first is that those who accept this picture of the University as liberal and biased, and I use "liberal" in the context of today's usage have accepted the media's depiction of the university.; and number two, they are in a certain light largely right, the University is biased and rightly so. As a critic, you come to the institution with different methods, and agendas and you will be challenged. If you want to come and discuss ideas at a University, and be recognized, then submit those ideas in a proper peer reviewed journal and proceed in the way described above. It is a case of when in Rome. Otherwise you arrive for a night of emotional if not Dionysian pleasures.
And it is with that that I quickly turn to free speech. The the right to free speech is a right to not be silenced by the state. It is not a promise of being provided a newspaper column, a Youtube video, or a microphone. These are in fact rewards and recognition for something already achieved. At the University, the person handed the microphone is published, is a department chair, or at the least a promising student. No one is just handed a microphone.
I would argue that student bodies today have too much freedom regarding who they can invite and the settings for such controversial speakers. They do not recognize nor appreciate the institution they are a part of, nor the challenges of maintaining such. There is a component of brand management here which is being neglected by universities when they allow their students or faculty to invite such speakers and then to have the event result in embarrassment or even violence. And then to have such incidents used by their critics is simply to illustrate the tension between media and academia. And perhaps it is a failure of university administrations to appreciate what they have and what they are responsible for.
I leave you with an example of something or someone the University should be celebrating, as opposed to bringing celebrities authors and the like in. Meet Mike Zimmerman. That is how Nova, the PBS Science program introduces him. He is a Professor of the Practice in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Tufts University up in Medford MA. That does not really reveal the story. For the past five years he has been developing a new "solid" lithium battery, used in our cell phones and other devices. His device is far safer than today's "liquid" lithium batteries which were causing issues such as Samsung's Galaxy debacle.
He is a bit of a showman as he can be found on Nova and on the below Youtube video driving nails and cutting up his battery, but with no flames, no ignitions, no dangerous consequences. He has developed a safe alternative to what is in our cell phones today and keep in mind lithium batteries play a vital role in another new market - electric vehicles.
You read the New York Times article from late 2016 regarding Zimmerman's work that he also has a start-up, Ionic Materials, which was awarded by Obama's Department of Energy $3 Million Dollars to continue to research, develop and ultimately manufacture such batteries. This is the beauty of the university. That a researcher can take a problem such as Samsung's battery issue, which is really not just their problem and spend several years working on it, pursuing a solution, and then if he has something promising, can open up a start up, and work out a deal with the university and in this case with the Department of Energy and run with it. It started with a concrete problem and a researcher in a lab.
I was watching him on Nova as I pondered some of the above. At one point he acknowledged that someone in this race will figure this out - developing a safe non-exploding lithium battery. He did not boast that he would solve this problem. Him and his team could offer up that solution, a solid and safe lithium battery, but we just do not know yet. He would love for it be his team, his start up. It does not have to be. He is pursing this to figure it out. From the interview and exchange, it is for him an engineering challenge. For him it is a search in a way for truth. And in this case, he or she who gets closest to that truth will also make out handsomely.
Last point, the spirit he exhibits is not exclusive to the university, but it remains a core value of the institution. Further, there are those in the media who engage in similar quests. The difference is that the university, despite their sports teams, and the like, have retained some component of this. Further, they have developed processes, where if you develop something that is of value in the market, they will work with you, but the primary driver, which seems to have propelled Mike Zimmerman for several years, was just looking at an engineering challenge and trying to figure it out. It was and is a quest for truth.
It is with these points in mind that I assert that controversial speakers are of little or no value to the university. Considering the function of a university, and that people such as Mike Zimmerman, who continue to populate universities, I offer that controversial speakers simply distract from something we sadly take for granted or even worse neglect.
