Treatment of Conservatives at Hamilton College

There seems to be a sentiment among left-leaning students and faculty on our campus that harassing conservative students is not only acceptable, but actually should be done. These same students and faculty, however, refuse to acknowledge that political harassment and discrimination are taking place at Hamilton. Many of my peers who attended Kim Strassel’s lecture on January 25 were made uncomfortable by my introduction, especially my – as one student put it – “baldface lie” that conservatives are harassed for their views at Hamilton.

I most certainly was not lying. I was referring to real people and real events that occurred on our campus. As a public face of conservatism at Hamilton, perhaps it’s time I share my own thoughts and experiences with the community.

At the beginning of the fall semester, the harassment went as far as trying to suppress my – and the other Enquiry writers’ – free speech by ripping up or stealing copies of our publication. It doesn’t bother me at all if people don’t agree with what we write , but destroying our work and property in an attempt to suppress our free speech is disgusting. Though we often don’t agree with the ideas and sentiments expressed in other campus publications, we would never stoop to vandalize them.

Shortly thereafter, I began receiving anonymous notes in my campus mailbox demanding that I stop publishing “offensive and inappropriate” pieces. Unfortunately, this is nothing new. Nearly all of our previous editors have received similar – and in some cases far more threatening – messages just because they are conservative or libertarian and have published various pieces reflecting such views. Enquiry accepts all article submissions as long as they are well written and well constructed. If you don’t like what we publish, send us something yourself.

I thought this was the worst my experiences were going to get. I was able to shake off the messages and our staff, though deeply bothered by such reprehensible behavior, continued to publish. But nothing could prepare us for what would occur leading up to, and following, Election Day.

In the days before November 8, my fellow Republicans and I were met with a barrage of animosity. Though many of us made it perfectly clear that Donald Trump was not our candidate of choice, professors, classmates, teammates, and even friends still singled us out for our continued support of the Republican Party.

In what world is it OK to harass someone for doing his or her civic duty? For voting for the candidate that we believed would best represent our views, our interests, and our country? Here’s a news flash for some of you: some of us even voted for Hillary Clinton. But you wouldn’t have a clue about that, because you just assumed we’re all racist, homophobic Trump supporters.

Even if you think that destroying a publication in the name of sensitivity, sending threatening messages, or putting people down on account of their political leanings doesn’t count as harassment, you cannot deny that the physical and verbal intimidation I experienced on Election Day does.

On November 8, a number of instances occurred in which I was called a racist, bigot, and homophobe (which, for the record, could not be further from the truth). Once on that day, a male Hamilton student followed me – shouting insults – all the way along Martin’s Way. Isn’t this exactly the same behavior that the left is trying to protect marginalized communities from? And by the way, conservatives are definitely a marginalized group on this campus.

Then, just when I thought things had finally calmed down, Inauguration Day rolled around and Republicans were once again the objects of torment by “liberals.” I even received a particularly unprofessional, if not malicious, email from one Professor Katharine Kuharic in the Art Department – whom I have never met– in response to a message I sent notifying the Hamilton community about a public invitation to watch the inauguration at the AHI. Though my message contained no political opinion or indication that the event was meant to celebrate Trump’s inauguration, Professor Kuharic deemed it appropriate to forward me an all-faculty email concerning the Women’s March, appending the message: “you may want to discuss as the US inaugurates an illegitimate Russian puppet intent on destroying the constitutional rights to free speech, press, religious practice and birthright citizenship.”

Worst of all, our college’s administration did next to nothing when asked to address the political harassment on campus. I did not hear a single word from anyone other than the campus investigator who took my deposition on Election Day, and though I spoke with President Wippman after the Inauguration Day incident, it’s clear to me that the administration would rather downplay any incidents than address them head-on. Imagine that, instead of me, all these things had happened to a student of color, or a student who identifies as being LGBTQ+. There would be a bias incident report and group counseling available to the entire student body.

I am certainly not the only conservative student who has experienced harassment on this campus. Others have been shamed out of classes, or ridiculed by professors and students alike. Some seem to have had their grades lowered because of their political leanings. How can the administration continue to deny that conservatives are made to feel ridiculed and excluded on campus? Or, at the very least, how can they deny that conservatives are treated worse than their peers?

In Defense of School Choice

The United States ranks third globally in expenditures on public education as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Furthermore, in 2012, the United States’s spending on elementary and secondary education was $11,700 per student, 31 percent higher than the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s average of $9,000. In 2012, American students ranked average: 28th in science, 36th in mathematics, and 24th in reading. Eighteen countries outranked the U.S. in all three subjects. This data suggests that increased education spending is not enough to improve our public schools. 

Over the past few decades, debate has continued over how to fix America’s underperforming public education system. The proposed solution of “school choice” has recently gained momentum, as more and more states implement such options in various forms. School choice gives students more educational opportunities, including access to charter schools, voucher programs, and private school scholarships. 

Many people worry that school choice will divert dollars away from vulnerable school districts, causing students to suffer. While schools need a certain level of spending to cover necessary costs from teachers’ salaries to utilities, many districts have enough funding to cover these resources and could improve their performance without increasing expenditures. One indicator of this possibility is that private school students tend to outperform public school students, despite having budgets 34 percent lower than taxpayer-funded schools.

Opponents of school choice also worry that these policies burden already-struggling school districts. People fear that higher-achieving students will flee failing school districts, resulting in a further loss of funding and resources for these troubled schools.

However, 29 out of 30 major studies on this topic found that school choice improved struggling schools as well as outcomes for students (just one study found no significant effects). Schools most affected by competition tend to perform slightly better after the implementation of school choice, meaning that both students who change schools and students who stay in struggling districts benefit. 

Another common argument against school choice is the belief that it leaves disadvantaged students behind. But to the contrary: Most students participating in school choice programs come from low-income communities. Additionally, a study by the Brookings Institution and Harvard University found that private school voucher programs made African-American students 24 percent more likely to enroll in college. 

The one downside of school choice, as I see it, is that not all students have the means of transportation to attend “choice schools.” Choice programs have been very successful at involving disadvantaged students in many of America’s cities, where a variety of schools are close to students and public transportation to them is available. But school choice has helped even rural communities. At least 33 states already have free public online education, which provides a form of school choice to students who may not be able to attend other schools due to transportation barriers. Furthermore, online education has a significantly lower overhead cost, saving school districts money without compromising the quality of education. 

Though it would be unwise to slash public school funding, a myriad of studies show that despite increases in spending, American public schools in general continue to struggle. To combat these challenges, it is time that Americans reevaluate the effectiveness of education spending and invest more in alternative options, such as school choice. While opponents fear that school choice hurts disadvantaged students and struggling districts, the data suggests otherwise. School choice could be much of what America needs to improve its struggling schools. 

Messiaen’s Quartet

About 300 prisoners—and several Nazi officers and guards--in prisoner-of-war camp Stalag VIII A, near the Polish border, were the first to hear one of the most beautiful and haunting musical works of the 20th century, on a winter’s night in 1941. Before the event, a prisoner drew up an artistic poster with the imprint of a camp-sanctioned seal. On the evening of the performance, officers and guards seated themselves in the front row, placing prisoners behind them— half-frozen in an unheated barracks.

Stalag VIII A (or Prisoner-of-War Camp 8A) in Goerlitz, Germany was not unlike other camps of the Third Reich. Subject to brutal conditions, prisoners were often treated as less than human. This particular camp, however, was unique in three distinct ways. Inside, there inhabited: three gifted musicians, a sympathetic officer, and a renowned 31-year-old French composer named Olivier Messiaen. This famous composer, captured at the (World War II) Battle of Verdun in 1940 while his wife and two-year-old son were back in Paris, wrote and premiered one of his greatest masterpieces, the Quartet for the End of Time, in this German camp. 

Messiaen wrote the whole Quartet for piano, cello, clarinet, and violin while imprisoned. Unquestionably, this complex and religiously inspired musical piece about the end of days in the Book of Revelation would never have come to fruition without a little serendipity. The combination of a surprisingly civilized Nazi officer encouraging Messiaen to write and a few musically gifted prisoners spurred his composition. The Nazi officer fortunately loved classical music, and Messiaen’s mere presence at the camp thrilled him. He went out of his way to supply the composer with the necessary writing materials and instruments. There were three prisoners who were brilliant musicians — one could even say virtuosos. They were willing to learn Messiaen’s demanding and textured composition, with its eight movements, using inferior instruments under appalling circumstances. Étienne Pasquier was the cellist, Henri Akoka was the clarinetist, and Jean Le Boulaire was the violinist. Messiaen himself debuted as the pianist.

The reaction to the performance of these beleaguered, emaciated musicians and to the composer’s music on that January evening in 1941 was one of astonishment. Even the cynical, hardened Nazis at the camp and the demoralized prisoners were made speechless by its grace, exquisite construction, serenity, and passion. The cellist, Pasquier, described what he saw afterward: “These people … sensed that this was something exceptional. They sat perfectly still, in awe. Not one person stirred.”

For Messiaen, the Quartet for the End of Time was not really about a dramatic and awful end, nor was it about the war, or prison life. Instead he saw it as a song without words, written to God. It recounted, in quiet and dramatic ways, the triumph of beauty and truth – what was eternal and outside of time - with the help of the ordinary, powerless prisoners trapped in a quagmire of extraordinarily terrible circumstances. The piece was not only difficult to play and impressive in scope; it was also thought- provoking and a compelling spiritual response to the ugliness, destruction, and evil that pervaded the camp. It was a window into eternity, “the harmonious silence of heaven.” It was not a window into bitterness, anger, or resignation to the darkness.

The Quartet was an unexpected gift, a beautiful bird in flight. Given all that Messiaen suffered through and saw in the war and the camp, one senses from his music that he did not lament his lot in life, or ask God why he was stuck in such a desolate hellhole. He instead whispered to God: “At the end of all days, I want to be with you, you whom I love. I am not able to walk this difficult path alone.” Messiaen presented a wellspring of hope, faith, and love when he could have composed something utterly different. He created something so thoughtful, delicate, and lovely - almost the opposite of a response to catastrophe. After listening to the eight movements, one cannot help but shed tears. One can easily see how the piece left prisoners and guards at a loss for words. 

January 15 is the anniversary of the Quartet for the End of Time performance in Stalag VIII A. For many years, to mark that event, Germans and Poles have descended into a museum and concert hall, next to the remains of the old prisoner-of-war camp, to quietly listen to a performance of this remarkable, moving piece of music by a deeply religious Catholic French composer and former prisoner of war, Olivier Messiaen.

After his release from the camp, Messiaen returned to Paris. He died in 1992. 

College Journalism

 I am writing this piece in reaction to recent failures of The Spectator concerning the Kim Strassel event held on January 25. This is not about the opinion piece against Ms. Strassel’s talk, published in The Spectator, because the poor quality of that piece spoke for itself. Instead, I am responding to the blatant lack of journalistic judgment that is suggested by its publishing this column without any evidence of thoughtful editing. 

The failures of college journalism, however, do not originate with students. They cannot be blamed for what they do not know. The glaring problem with The Spectator is the lack of faculty input. 

While some students do have great journalism experience from an internship or work shadow program, faculty or staff members with years of experience in writing for publication should teach students how to write well for readers. 

From simple grammar edits to professional coverage of events, limited faculty oversight would ensure both a higher standard of quality in student pieces and the experience, for students, of working under a careful editor. When writing for Enquiry, I receive pages of edits on a 600-word piece (even when it is a good one). Over the past two years, these edits have improved my writing more than any writing-intensive class on campus has. This is the type of editing and writing experience students should seek out in college if they want to go into journalism – tear apart every line of your writing, if necessary, to improve its quality and therefore the overall quality of the product. You rarely, if ever, get the same experience if only your peers are looking over your work.

 Students should also look to “old journalism” to learn how to write, more than taking cues from blogs and “new journalists.” Exemplified by Vox and Huffington Post, new journalism leads the way in fast and thoughtless writing. While this fast writing is very easy to read and accessible, it tends to be less meaningful. Writers for these outlets are under constant deadline pressure to publish multiple times a day, in order to “drive” more clicks. These posts usually lack details about the topic, the structure found in good writing, and any integrity of ownership associated with the post. Writers can simply edit such quick postings to reflect the current “facts,” whether they are confirmed or not. This too-automatic relay of information takes all responsibility out of the hands of the writer and editor. 

In the wake of the 2016 election, there is a special need to hold journalists accountable for what they publish. Is it surprising that every major news outlet seemed to completely miss the signs indicating Trump might win when so much news coverage was fast and thoughtless? Had these journalists acknowledged the facts in front of them and the overall political picture in our country, the election result would not have been such a shock. Maybe better journalism could have changed the outcome. 

College journalists should not emulate these “new journalists,” or those more mainstream journalists who are too much like them. College journalists need to learn how to write and compose a piece before they adopt an easygoing style. They need to master the fundamentals of journalism in college if they ever hope to have a meaningful career in the field. So I urge campus publications: Think meaningfully about what you publish. Your articles and columns are not only for your writers’ benefit, but could significantly affect student life on campus if you use your journalistic tools skillfully and thoughtfully.

Kim Strassel's Talk: A Step Toward Intellectual Diversity at Hamilton

Leading up to Kim Strassel’s January 25 lecture, rumors of a protest against the event circulated around campus.

            Many students that I spoke with, especially those on the political left, assumed Ms. Strassel’s talk would be offensive -- a direct attack on all liberals. After all, they argued, the title of her speech (also the title of her most recent, critically acclaimed book) was The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech. As one student wrote in the Spectator, she attended the lecture with “a general idea of how this was going to go just from the title alone.”

            To borrow a popular proverb, many of these students were judging Strassel’s book by its cover. As one of Enquiry’s associate editors has noted, there was a definite “disparity between the title and the content of her work. The title might appear to identify the book (and lecture) as right-wing anti-liberal propaganda … [but] Strassel’s talk could not have been further from this.”            Instead of blindly attacking the entire political left, Strassel focused the content of her talk on specific efforts made by leftists to silence free speech. She noted that her original intent in writing the book was not to crucify the left, but rather to identify tactics that politicians and governmental organizations on both sides of the aisle use to silence free speech. It was only after conducting thorough research – and realizing that she had found far fewer examples of the right stifling free speech – that she decided to focus on the left.   

            Strassel began her talk by warning of a “you can say anything you want as long as I agree with it” attitude among those who seek to limit free speech. She argued that the left more frequently resorted to this kind of tactic in 2010, after the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case in favor of removing federal restrictions on political expenditures by certain corporate entities. This part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law had restricted corporations from contributing to issue ads and other campaign activities.

            Strassel explained that excessive federal restrictions on campaign contributions infringed upon the First Amendment by eliminating avenues through which people and organizations could get out messages. In doing so, she called money a proxy for, an equivalent of, free speech. Though Strassel is correct in her assessment that some campaign finance laws have functioned, in part, as “speech laws” that encroached upon corporate entities’ First Amendment rights, she should have de-emphasized the importance of money in campaigns (money isn’t the issue here, free speech is) and included a few additional words on the right of corporations to defend their interests.

            As Strassel correctly said, when the Supreme Court decision was handed down in 2010, the left “freaked out” and increasingly resorted to a strategy of intimidation and harassment. For example, some Senate Democrats demanded that the IRS target certain groups – or, as President Obama called them, “shadowy organizations” and “outside influences” – that were opposed to Obama’s policies. As a result, the IRS put nearly 400 applications by political groups for non-profit status “on ice.” Strassel argued that this was part of a deliberate strategy intended to stifle the political speech of conservative groups leading up to the 2010 midterm election and 2012 presidential election. “The IRS knew what it was doing and knew it was wrong,” she said, pointing to a damning paper trail that indicates this.

            The “John Doe” case in Wisconsin, Strassel maintained, was another effort by the left to silence free speech. In response to Governor Scott Walker’s 2011 union reform legislation, Democratic prosecutors conducted a series of secret investigations into supporting groups, which resulted in pre-dawn raids. In one of the targeted homes, a teenage son was threatened by police officers to keep his mouth shut about what happened. The Wisconsin Supreme Court eventually ruled that the prosecutors involved had attempted to intimidate certain organizations into not giving further donations to Republicans.

            Similarly, members of the political left used intimidation – in this case disclosure laws – to target right-of-center citizens in California. Strassel explained that during the debate over Proposition 8 (a ballot measure to prohibit same-sex marriage) disclosure laws – which were originally intended to keep track of the activities of politicians – were used to identify supporters of the proposition. Supporters were not only identified but also targeted: opponents of Prop. 8 created a searchable map of their homes and addresses. Many found themselves subject to flash-mob protesters and had their property damaged. The CEO of Mozilla, who privately supported Prop. 8, even lost his job.

            Strassel argued that this intimidation tactic was also used against the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a nonprofit group that writes model free-market legislation for consideration at the state level. After the Trayvon Martin shooting in 2012, activist groups began accusing the group of being “racist” for its previous help in drafting “stand your ground” laws. The activist groups found out who gave money to ALEC – which resulted in the attempted blackmail of board members of major companies – and the group lost half of its donors within two months.

            Finally, Strassel pointed to efforts by left-leaning people on college campuses to stifle free speech. She mentioned the increasing presence at colleges and universities of a well-funded organization called “UnKoch My Campus,” which aims to shut down one form of intellectual diversity – efforts and proposals receiving funding from the libertarian Koch Foundation. I do wish, especially given the nature of her audience, that Strassel had further explored the issue of free speech on college campuses.

            Overall, however, her talk was brilliant. She drove home a number of salient points and handled difficult questions from the audience with grace. It was also refreshing to hear someone who is right-of-center speak at Hamilton. I can only hope that – at least in the name of intellectual diversity – we can bring more conservative speakers to campus.

Trump's Muslim Ban

January 30 would have been Fred Korematsu’s 98th birthday. Korematsu, a Japanese-American, was famous for challenging Japanese internment camps during World War II before the Supreme Court (Korematsu v. United States). Though an American citizen by birth, he was forced by law to pack up his belongings and register at an internment camp – a requirement he believed was unconstitutional.

In 2004, one year before his death, Korematsu wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle that  “no one should ever be locked away simply because they share the same race, ethnicity, or religion as a spy or terrorist. If that principle was not learned from the internment of Japanese Americans, then these are very dangerous times for our democracy.” His words serve as an eerie prediction regarding President Trump’s recent immigration ban.

Trump’s ban – before it was blocked by a federal judge’s ruling  – was set to last for 90 days. It aimed to stop people from seven countries compromised by ISIS – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen – from entering the United States. Additionally, Trump’s administration stated that green card holders and special immigrants could expect a “swift entry,” but that they would also be checked. The ban did not apply to dual nationals and diplomats. It is also important to note that the ban would not have directly affected U.S. citizens.

Though both Trump and his supporters are quick to say that President Obama did a “similar thing” in 2011, Obama never issued an outright ban on all people from predominantly Muslim countries trying to enter the United States. Instead, he slowed down the refugee admittance process and required re-examination of Iraqi refugees already in the United States, in response to threats issued by two Iraqi refugees in Kentucky. According to the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center, 6,339 Iraqi refugees still entered the U.S. in 2011.

How can President Trump’s isolationist attitude possibly benefit Americans? Our college’s namesake, who was perhaps the most influential founding father, was an immigrant. I am an immigrant. The people I e-mail, message, and speak with on a regular basis are immigrants or descendants of immigrants. In fact, other than the two or three Native Americans I’ve met (excluding those who make the “I’m 1/200th Cherokee” argument), I have spent my entire life surrounded by descendants of immigrants.

The United States of America is a nation of, for, and by immigrants. As the inscription on the Statue of Liberty says: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” If that does not speak volumes about the importance of immigration to the United States, I am not sure what does.

I came to this country shortly after a day that will live in infamy, September 11th, 2001. I was three years old and the only words I knew in English were “hello,” “yes,” and “thank you.” But as soon as I arrived I fell in love with what I am now proud to call my country. I found friends, people who were eager to learn about me and help me acculturate to this new life. They invited me, with smiles and open hearts, to try new things, like St. Louis baby back ribs (which quickly became my favorite food as a child). I loved, and still love, the United States. If I could do it all over again, I would pick this nation over all others in a heartbeat.

While I understand that President Trump is trying to ensure the safety of the American people, his immigration ban upsets me. Even if it were lifted after those 90  days, children emigrating from these seven countries would not have the same positive experience that I did coming here. There would be a bias against them from the outset. They would look like the people Trump aimed to target with his ban, and therefore like enemies of the United States. They might not be welcomed into homes, sports teams, and schools like I was. They might be rejected as people simply because they cannot choose their birthplace and ethnicity.

Let’s learn from Korematsu, from the Statue of Liberty, from others like Alexander Hamilton, Albert Einstein, and Andrew Carnegie about how great immigration can be. As elementary school children across the nation learn to sing: “This land is your land, this land is my land …” Let’s keep it that way.