Reconsidering priorities: Is the College ‘pampering’ its students?

January 27, 2016 by Bruce Entwisle

President Adam Falk wrote a letter to the College community in early December stating that historical structures (i.e. campus buildings) and decorations (statues, etc.) seem “problematic in a modern context” and are somehow “less welcoming” and “not fully inclusive in this century.” He announced that he would be directing a committee to determine what should be done with articles that don’t fit today’s sensitivities, among other tasks. Additionally, the newly-renovated Log will have a mural secreted because of a depiction that is “of particular concern.”

It seems to me that the premise of Falk’s initiative is twofold: that today is part of a different era than that which preceded us in the previous two centuries and, also, that we have found ourselves in a place where we simply can’t live comfortably with our history. In short, the remnants of that history are no longer “welcoming” (whatever that means) and must be “considered” by a panel of experts. I certainly agree with the first part, because all societies evolve over time. The second part of the premise, however, is that, as a result, it is now advisable to judge all decorations and monuments of an earlier era according to the standards of today. I disagree.

In my view, any culture, entity or country that attempts to erase or modify history is, simply put, illiberal, dictatorial and fascist. Two instances from recent history come quickly to mind: the Taliban in Afghanistan destroying ancient Buddhist statues and Mao’s exhortations to his citizenry to pillage the Great Wall for materials in an effort to erase a previous era. We should be asking ourselves, “Why do totalitarians seek to destroy their own heritage? Why would a liberal arts institution strive to do the same?”

My suggestion is that rather than modify or veil our history with all its warts, we insist that incoming freshmen (can I still say freshmen?) enroll in mandatory comparative history courses. Let’s compare our country’s unvarnished history to Europe’s, Africa’s, South America’s, Asia’s and so on. Yes, we had slavery, but the 13th Amendment eradicated it after 620,000 American deaths over 150 years ago. As we know, slavery still exists in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere. Yes, we mistreated and lied to the American Indians. We discriminated against our freed black population after the Civil War, but incrementally passed laws to rectify those mistakes. I would note that blacks are more likely to distrust the medical establishment, perhaps due to the Tuskegee experiments among other reasons but, as a hospital board member, I see the daily outreach to black populations to encourage them to overcome their suspicions and access healthcare.

I recently read the College’s mission statement and, if it is still in force, the College is proposing to meander well outside that mission. In my personal view (and in comportment with the document cited), the College’s number one priority is, or should be, to prepare students for what awaits them upon graduation. There are no safe spaces on Wall Street (or any other street), and graduates will be subjected to speech or actions by others that offend them. In the real world, people will consider some of the complaints heard at Williams to be trivial; graduates will be told to “grow up” and get back to work (assuming they are able to get a job). Why are we pampering the most elite students in this country?

Lastly, I just want to emphasize Falk’s comment regarding the Log mural, to wit: “Covering it now is not intended to be a prejudgment – of any kind –.” Really? How utterly absurd is that statement? If Falk has decided to preemptively cover the mural, then he’s delivered his opinion, and this prejudgment serves as a road map for the esteemed committee that will judge what is “unwelcoming” or offensive to what is apparently a very fragile student body. (Having said that, it’s been my experience that those students who are offended by the mural are a distinct but vocal minority, so I apologize to the preponderance of the student body for being judgmental.)

The Board of Trustees is the ultimate arbiter of what should happen on campus regarding this adolescence (on the part of the administration as well as the student body). If you were to poll students and alumni, I think you would get a huge majority condemning Falk’s letter of intentions

I don’t suggest the Board do the polling; I suggest they be the adults on campus and tell the community to stop the puerile grievances and get back to more serious endeavors.

Bruce Entwisle ’76 majored in English. He lives in Philadelphia, Pa.

{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }

Tom Villanova January 27, 2016 at 11:32 am

Well said. class of ’75

Reply

Jon Myers '75 January 28, 2016 at 12:40 am

Could not agree more. What Mr. Falk is so wrongly suggesting is to turn Williams into one giant Mission Park (a horrible building from day 1, btw).

Reply

hc January 31, 2016 at 9:28 am

Actually the name “Mission Park” is one of the things being considered for changed.

The Haystack Monument also is under consideration- to be fenced in so that it is removed from plain view.

Reply

Chris Alberti '75 January 28, 2016 at 7:08 am

Well said.

Reply

Michael Capone January 28, 2016 at 7:22 pm

Mr. Entwisle could not be more on target with his comments. Rather than choosing to ignore our history or eradicate that which we now deem to be offensive, we should use it as an example as how far we have come as a nation.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that life is full or both good and bad experiences. We can learn from both.

Please do not lose your way as you work to help shape the future of future generations.

Reply

Rick Williams January 29, 2016 at 6:54 pm

Excellent essay Bruce. As a chemistry major, I can only say your english major shines through. This letter was relayed to me by a mutual friend; imagine my surprise to see we were classmates in elementary school. I submit this comment as an Amherst ’76, where as we all know there was a recent action to subtract Jeff the “unofficial” mascot. Our colleges are being intellectually irresponsible when they trend toward erasing history based on current opinion. Historical figures are just that, not offensive intrusions into the comfort of modern students. Better to all know the history and thereby preserve it, rather than have it suppressed so students can feel safe.

Reply

Bruce Entwisle '76 February 3, 2016 at 3:43 pm

“Ricky” Williams! Great to hear from you. I still remember a birthday party at your house when we were in elementary school (among many other things). I’m sorry we didn’t bump into each other during our Williams/Amherst days. I’ve been following the mascot “disaster” through a ’78 Amherst alum, Jim Still so we’ve had some fun with that.

Who sent this over to you that is a mutual friend?

Hope you’re well.

Reply

P '18 January 30, 2016 at 8:01 pm

Just wanted to say that there are current students like myself who support your sentiment as well. Very well articulated and written.

Reply

hc January 31, 2016 at 9:22 am

Yes, very well done.

Haystack is on the table. The Soldier Monument is on the table. So is the American Flag- all symbols of hegemony and oppression.

All things that are an assault on the diverse synergy within the fusion of the inclusive paradigm must be considered….

See that- I just covered what will be stated in the next community wide email… as well as the message from this newspaper. You can now hit delete without ever having to read what is being said- because it is all buzz word nonsense.

To paraphrase: “Don’t be offended while I cover art and stuff- this is about inclusion!”

What of the work done by those who came before? Those from World War Two, World War one, or the Civil War? Are all their sacrifices are to be banished as well. When will they be given the same treatment as Ephraim Williams and Chief Hendrick?

We are told this mural is clearly problematic- why is it problematic? You do not get to make bold statements about art and cover it with plywood without a better explanation than the simple proposition of omnipotence- do you?

Well, maybe at Williams College…

Reply

JS February 4, 2016 at 2:58 pm

The potential intolerance of liberal arts institutions, it appears often by the student body, is troubling. I agree with the sentiment that the expunging the past is most often done in countries where the new leaders prefer to forget what went before. Will later members of the student body and faculty get to redo what the current group decides is inappropriate? Will Williams decide to cover art in the museums if Rafsanjani comes to visit?

Reply

anon February 5, 2016 at 4:54 pm

Leave a Comment