Falk cancels UL’s planned lecture by John Derbyshire

February 24, 2016 by Neena Patel, News Editor

Screenshot 2016-02-24 11.20.34

Uncomfortable Learning has invited various speakers to come to the College over the past year. Photos courtesy of (from L to R): the College, University Of Chicago, the Huntsville Times, Suzannevenker.com, James Hitchcock and The New Yorker.

President of the College Adam Falk stated that writer John Derbyshire would not be permitted to speak at the College in a campus-wide email on Thursday. Uncomfortable Learning (UL), an unofficial student organization, had scheduled Derbyshire to speak on Feb. 22 in Paresky Auditorium. The organization had announced his talk, “The National Question: Race, Ethnicity and Identity in the 21st Century,” in a Facebook event last Wednesday.

“Today I am taking the extraordinary step of canceling a speech by John Derbyshire, who was to have presented his views here on Monday night,” Falk said in the email. “The College didn’t invite Derbyshire, but I have made it clear to the students who did that the College will not provide a platform for him.”

Derbyshire was a writer for the National Review until 2012, when he was let go after publishing an article online entitled “The Talk: Nonblack Version” on a website unaffiliated with the National Review [Taki’s Magazine, April 5, 2012]. In the piece, he made comments about African Americans that National Review Editor Rich Lowry called “nasty and indefensible” in a statement on the incident [“Parting Ways,” April 7, 2012]. VDARE, a website which publishes articles that relate to immigration, race and American Politics, now publishes Derbyshire’s writing and shares his podcast, Radio Derb. Derbyshire also wrote the 2009 book We are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism.

Falk heard about the event on Tuesday Feb. 16, noticed the Facebook event on Wednesday and then sent the email canceling the event last Thursday morning. Shortly after the speaker was announced, students protested using social media such as Facebook, Twitter and Yik Yak, labeling Derbyshire, who calls himself a “novelist, pop-math author, reviewer and opinion journalist” on his website, a white supremacist and racist. “The truth is that I made this decision before I heard from practically any students, faculty, staff or alumni. I might have had no more than two or three messages of concern,” Falk said. “It was really made independently of any expression of concern by anyone else – it was my concern, and the concern of others on the senior staff, that entirely drove the decision.”

“It was really his decision,” Dean of the College Sarah Bolton said. “I support it. I think that free speech is incredibly important and is also not the only important thing in looking out for the well-being of a community.”

In the fall, UL invited Suzanne Venker, a controversial writer who speaks against feminism, to campus and later uninvited her due to student opposition. After this series of events, Falk wrote an op-ed piece in the Record stating, “Whatever our own views may be, we should be active in bringing to campus speakers whose opinions are different from our own” [“How to disagree,” Oct. 28, 2015].

Bolton said, “It’s my sense that President Falk would not have cancelled Suzanne Venker, and that reaffirms my point that John Derbyshire is in a category of his own relative to these other speakers.”

“In the fall, I said I would never cancel a speaker. I meant that. I never thought we would see someone as overtly racist and white supremacist asked to come speak at the College,” Falk said. “Suzanne Venker expresses ideas that I happen to profoundly disagree with, but they’re ideas that in a college one ought to be able to discuss. John Derbyshire doesn’t bring ideas, John Derbyshire brings racist rantings.”

Falk stated his belief in the importance of having a community where everyone can discuss challenging ideas, and “we don’t put an ideological filter on who comes.” He clarified that he does not believe that giving a speaker a place to speak on campus is an endorsement of their views. That being said, he does not believe the College is required to give everyone with views such as Derbyshire’s a platform.

“Somewhere there’s a line, and he’s on the other side of it. [It would be] very destructive to our community for someone who expresses himself in that vituperative way to come,” Falk said.

Derbyshire does not “take seriously the humanity of whom he is speaking, certainly not people of color,” Falk said, which the president believes made productive discussion impossible.

“There is a media narrative that college students don’t want to hear anything they disagree with and they react to challenging ideas by shutting their ears,” Falk said. “I don’t think Williams students at all are trying to hide from challenging, difficult ideas, but I think it’s an easy story for the media to tell.  When people say ‘I don’t like political correctness,’ it’s often a code for ‘I want to say something that’s offensive, and it turns out that I can’t say that now without people objecting.’”

UL is an unofficial student organization funded by anonymous donors. It was created three years ago.

“What Uncomfortable Learning tries to do is bring speakers to the College who the College might not bring themselves,” Zach Wood ’18, president of the club, said. “The first thing that I really want to say is that I am very sympathetic to the concerns that students had who didn’t want Derbyshire to come. I think that the emotional responses are very real and very important.”

UL decides on speakers by first determining what subjects they would like to cover. It then searches for speakers who would be able to cover the topics. Wood asserted that UL is open to suggestions from the entire student body.

“I believe that at Williams College, an institution of higher education, intellectual freedom and freedom of speech is very important, and I think that those are principles of which our education is grounded in,” Wood said. “It is important in our world to engage with, and try to understand, opinions that not just differ from yours, but radically differ from yours. Even if something is offensive, I personally think that there is something that can be learned from it.”

Em Nuckols ’16 created a Facebook event for a workshop entitled “Challenging Conversations” in response to the UL event. Nuckols sought to provide a space for students to discuss and practice rhetorical strategies for dealing with oppression and controversy. Despite the fact that the lecture was cancelled, the event occurred on Sunday afternoon with the same goals in mind.

Students first divided into small groups, introduced themselves and stated why they had come. They then discussed various situations where it might be necessary, or the opportunity may arise, to challenge someone’s views, from classroom situations to larger events such as forums with the Board of Trustees. The event concluded with a role-play in which students formulated and voiced their opinions about certain issues that could arise at a Board of Trustees event.

“I wanted to help prepare people if they wanted to go to the Derbyshire event or if they wanted to engage with other manifestations of white supremacy on campus. I wanted to hopefully give them some skills for communicating their points effectively. I’m not an expert. I just wanted to see what I could do,” Nuckols said.

In response to the Falk’s cancellation of the event, Nuckols said, “I think it was very positive that it was canceled. I think that it is extremely harmful to have someone who has extraordinarily uneducated views on people’s humanity … There’s no place for that here.”

Derbyshire would not disclose how much he was going to be paid to speak at the College or where he has delivered lectures in the past year.

“I think it’s a shame. I was looking forward to a lively discussion afterwards. I like lively discussions,” Derbyshire said.

VDARE published the speech he purportedly planned to deliver at the College (“Derb’s canceled Williams College Hate Address – “ The National Question: Race, Ethnicity, and Identity in the 21st Century,” Feb. 21, 2016). The speech published on VDARE discusses the relationship of race, ethnicity and identity to immigration patterns globally, concluding with commentary on race relations in United States specifically. After commenting on immigration between “Third World” and “First World” countries, Derbyshire questions the narrative that poverty and crime within African-American communities “at both the national and subnational level… is the fault of whites,” asserting instead that is a failure of the black population. “[Ta-Nehisi Coates and Al Sharpton] are, in the plain ecological sense, are parasites on their non-black fellow citizens,” he wrote. “The revealed preference of blacks everywhere today is to live in white societies, an implicit admission that they can’t create pleasant societies of their own and are dependent on other races for a decent living standard.”

Derbyshire also references Charles Murray, the next speaker UL has invited, after claiming that “genetic variation that characterizes different races might tend to result in different societies.”

Murray, author of The Bell Curve, is scheduled to come to the College this spring. He believes that race and class are linked to intelligence. Falk has no plans to cancel Murray’s visit.

“It’s actually instructive to compare [him] directly with Derbyshire. Charles Murray has never written anything, to my knowledge, like  Derbyshre’s ‘The Talk.’ I don’t agree with what he says, I haven’t agreed with much of what he has said for 20 years, but he’s a scholar,” Falk said. He hopes that people start a civil and constructive argument with Murray when he comes.

Falk said, “If I were an agent of the government, I would take a more absolutist view about what speech is protected. If I were a governor of a state, I would protect that speech. But this isn’t that. Williams is a college and the value that we have is creating and preserving a community in which difficult and serious discussion of controversial issues can take place. Almost always that is best fostered by simply bringing the widest range of views into the public sphere. In this case, my strongly held opinion is that John Derbyshire’s appearance would have had the opposite effect, with respect to talking about difficult issues of race that we need to talk about.”

Correction: Feb. 24, 2016, 3:57 p.m.

John Derbyshire’s quote regarding Al Sharpton and Ta-Nehisi Coates was originally edited in a way that misrepresented its intended meaning. The article has been amended to include the full quote.

Correction: Feb. 25, 2016, 1:14 p.m.

A part of Em Nuckols’ quote supporting the cancellation that said Derbyshire calls himself a white supremacist has been removed. Derbyshire wrote that white supremacy is “not bad semantically” and “one of the better arrangements History has come up with,” (“Who Are We?–The Dissident Right?” VDARE, May 10, 2012) but we could find no instance of Derbyshire referring to himself as a white supremacist. 

{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }

Simplicio February 24, 2016 at 6:11 am

Between making campus-wide decisions without seeking out any opposing opinions, I suggest President Falk read the Woodward Report and then consider what is “absolutist.”

Reply

Jeff Thaler February 24, 2016 at 11:18 am

The editorial is very well-written. A key point for me is that the “UL” group is really not presenting speakers or opportunities for true “learning”, and certainly not in the tradition or practice of the person who first wrote, spoke and taught about “uncomfortable learning” at Williams– Professor Robert Gaudino. The current situation is no different from what I wrote about in the Record less than 4 months ago, so deja vu all over again…and again with Mr. Murray coming: http://williamsrecord.com/2015/11/04/in-pursuit-of-gaudinos-goal/

Reply

John Derbyshire February 24, 2016 at 2:27 pm

Here is what I wrote, in reference to Al Sharpton and Ta-Nehisi Coates:

“Sharpton or Coates would starve to death in a black society. They are, in the plain ecological sense, parasites on their non-black fellow citizens.”
http://tinyurl.com/zwb243f

Here is what this report SAYS I wrote:

“[Black societies] are, in the plain ecological sense, are parasites on their non-black fellow citizens.”

You people really have no shame, do you?

Reply

Natalee Dawson February 25, 2016 at 1:55 pm

Wait but can you explain your font decisions while you’re here?

Reply

Elliot Chester February 25, 2016 at 2:23 pm

Mr. Derbyshire, what do you mean when you say, “You people really have no shame, do you?”?

Do you mean to imply that a quickly-corrected editorial oversight implies some form of malice towards you on the part of Neena or the Record in general? If not, what do you mean by your comment?

Reply

John C. Drew, Ph.D. February 28, 2016 at 3:19 am

The plain meaning of John Derbyshire’s comments are obvious. The Williams Record misrepresented his views in a manner that was designed to make him seem less sensitive and less enlightened than he is in real life. I have no doubt that this error (or really smear) would have remained in place for years if Mr. Derbyshire had not reached out to correct it himself.

Reply

John B February 24, 2016 at 4:50 pm

What if some ideas are racist, and also true?

After all, the range of ideas that are considered racist is extremely broad. At one extreme, there are those who believe that whites are the master race, and all others must be subservient. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who will accuse you of racism for opposing affirmative action, or even simply for being white (i.e., “white privilege”).

Derbyshire surely falls somewhere within that spectrum, but it doesn’t follow that all of his ideas are wrong. If you rule out listening to ideas in advance, because they don’t fit your existing notions, aren’t you ruling out the possibility of finding out that you were mistaken about something important? Isn’t that the very definition of “living in a bubble?”

It’s one thing if you are being explicitly religious. For years the Catholic Church had an Index of Prohibited Books, and to willfully read one of those books in defiance of the Church was a sin grave enough to send your soul to Hell for all eternity. Does Williams now have an Index of Prohibited Ideas? Is that the kind of education you want?

Reply

John Derbyshire February 25, 2016 at 8:35 am

Well, thanks for making the change, guys. Here is a screenshot of your report pre-change: http://tinyurl.com/jk8otxh

Next point: You quote someone named Em Nuckols as saying of me, “He literally calls himself a white supremacist.”

Where did I call myself that? Please provide a reference or a link; or else do not quote people who make statements not supported by fact.

Reply

John C. Drew, Ph.D. February 28, 2016 at 3:26 am

It is sad to see such low quality work being done by students at the Williams Record. Two corrections in less than two days. Good grief! I’m confident that if their work would quickly improve if they faced greater scrutiny from those with more mainstream, conservative views. Unfortunately, Williams College has crushed out all but the most fervent hard left professors. This is a sad time for freedom of speech and intellectual advancement.

Reply

afalk February 25, 2016 at 11:32 am

Here is Derbyshire’s talk. You can judge for yourself whether it contains thoughtful and interesting ideas, or is simply idiotic white supremacy:

http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/derbs-canceled-williams-college-hate-address/

The Williams library has several of Derbyshire’s books in its collection, so it is hard to argue that he is a complete lunatic. Unless you’ve looked at the talk you should not comment as if you understand Derbyshire’s viewpoints.

Reply

S Morton March 1, 2016 at 4:58 pm

President Falk,
Your decision to bar Derbyshire and the conclusory basis for it will likely sit prominently in the evidence pile in the debate over what line should be drawn on free speech on an enlightened campus. On 10-28-15 in the Williams Record you expressed your views with specific facts and policy on the subject in your “How to argue” piece regarding a similar (Venker) controversy.
Your decision cries out for you to expound on the hard evidence that justifies barring this man. I don’t think “see for yourself” and “idiotic white lunacy” makes a fact-based case for this important decision.
I respectfully believe that you owe it to the Williams community and to all who care about this subject to spell out in detail the “viewpoint(s)” that render Derbyshire unacceptable as a Williams speaker!
At least let there be a healthy, open, and factually based debate about this!

Reply

John C. Drew, Ph.D. March 1, 2016 at 6:30 pm

I don’t think there is an serious person who has studied John Derbyshire who would classify him as either idiotic, a lunatic, or a white supremacist. Falk’s flippant, juvenile comments are uninformed, and display a profound level of misunderstanding about race realism, political culture studies and alt-right philosophy.

This is the sort of mistake that happens when physicists get involved in political and biological matters for which they have no training or relevant experience.

While most of us experts are in our own fields, we tend to be hapless amateurs everywhere else. If there was more diversity of opinion and freedom of thought at Williams College, then someone could have informed Falk that censoring John Derbyshire was a big mistake and a setback for Williams College.

Reply

Simplicio February 25, 2016 at 5:54 pm

Here is the Woodward Report. You can judge for yourself whether it contains thoughtful and interesting ideas, or is simply idiotic “free-speech absolutism”:

http://yalecollege.yale.edu/faculty-staff/faculty/policies-reports/report-committee-freedom-expression-yale

Unless you’ve looked at the report you should not comment as if you understand academic freedom.

Reply

Adam Minsky February 26, 2016 at 3:32 pm

I have read a number of columns by John Derbyshire, and viewed a few of his talks on youtube. The man often puts forth views that can infuriate folks across the political spectrum. There is ,however, nothing hateful about Derbyshire. The man is thoughtful, calm, and witty. As a trained mathematician, Derbyhsire tends to rely on data ,not emotion, when making an argument. Had he been allowed to speak, his listeners would have found themselves challenged and ,perhaps, uncomfortable. Worse things can happen on a college campus.
The late conservative writer Joe Sobran was once described as a writer who could address vitriolic subjects without vitriol. The same could be said of Derbyshire. It is unfortunate that students and others lost out on the chance to hear and engage him.

Reply

Charles Kronick February 27, 2016 at 12:05 am

With two speakers disinvited, I am wondering whether delivering a speech at Williams College will be viewed as prestigious, happy luck, or oversight. Otherwise, it leaves a difficult though silly conundrum. Which is more impressive: getting the invitation or the boot?

In each of these situations, I am seeing someone who is getting too much credit for stirring up controversy for events that fail to take place. Oh, but that’s the point, isn’t it?

Reply

John C. Drew, Ph.D. February 28, 2016 at 3:34 am

The bottom line is that if Williams College is justified to censoring John Derbyshire, then why isn’t the government also justified in censoring him?

After all, our whole nation is a community. The same supposedly vulnerable and fragile people who would be harmed by providing a platform for John Derbyshire would also be harmed by giving him any platform at all.

As you can see, from the hard left perspective, there isn’t too great a difference between censoring Derbyshire on campus, censoring him across the nation, or maybe even sending him to a concentration camp — all for the benefit of the greater good.

This is why the hard left is dangerous. If you stand in the way of their secular utopia, you will get run down their unforgiving, inhumane utilitarianism.

Reply

Charles kronick February 28, 2016 at 7:55 pm

Dr. Drew,

I do not doubt the eagerness of our ‘left’ friends to dissolve the bulk of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment strictly pertains to Congress. Williams College administrators, public relation departments, and media personnel are free to censor at will.

The restriction in the First Amendment is not present in the Second Amendment and the others, which seems to lead to confusion. So what is this amusement that now seems to characterize campus life? There is an loss of boundary between student identity and administrative. Left to their own devices, a body of students would be delighted to burn down half the campus, which is why a campus security force, properly armed of course, is still a desirable thing – even in our by bubble-wrapped lawful society.

Reply

John C. Drew, Ph.D. February 28, 2016 at 8:12 pm

Back when I was a young college-age Communist, I would have liked nothing better than to see the administration of my liberal arts college censor anyone who opposed divestment, affirmative action, or suggested gay sex was a public health risk. As a young totalitarian, I would be quiet comfortable — even elated — to see censorship at Williams College. I thank God I didn’t grow up in China. I probably would have been decapitating Catholics before I turned 21.

See, http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/02/meeting_young_obama.html

Reply

Charles Kronick '91 February 28, 2016 at 9:50 pm

Kidding aside, I think that you may have missed my point. The First Amendment is neither absolute nor extends beyond Congress.

Reply

John C. Drew, Ph.D. February 28, 2016 at 10:46 pm

No, I got it. I appreciate your constitutional originalism. I’ve enjoyed reading your other comments here as well. I don’t mind that you use a pseudonym. Did we meet when I taught at Williams from 1986-1989?

Leave a Comment

{ 9 trackbacks }