An Open Letter Concerning Colgate's Responses to the Association for Critical Collegians

by Aaron Robertson

Professor of Mathematics

Faculty Advisor for Colgate's Young Americans for Liberty

Dear President Herbst,  Dean Hicks, and Dean Nelson,

I support the students’ rights to free assembly in order to make substantive change at Colgate.  The issues of bias on campus are real; the majority are student interactions, while there are only some select cases of inappropriate discussions by a few faculty members. I do not, however, subscribe to the belief that policy measures dictated by students (with select faculty exhorting the ACC’s demands) will ameliorate the problems in any significant way.  In fact, several of the well-intentioned “solutions” could easily have the opposite effect.

It is unsettling and incongruent that mandating compliance and adherence to a certain viewpoint is perceived as a good method to foster an atmosphere of diversity and inclusivity.  This certain viewpoint is also one championed by the political left, and given the (political) liberal privilege on this campus (and many others), only serves to further disenfranchise those who do not espouse such left-leaning solutions.  Furthermore, the new regulations placed on faculty, staff, and – to a lesser degree – administration, presume a widespread racial bias problem within the ranks at Colgate.  This belies the majority of student racial bias experiences being about student-on-student bigotry.

Even more disturbing, and another example of (political) liberal privilege, is the new mandate being handed down by administrators who do not engage in faculty hiring.  For years we have been told to create as large and diverse a pool of applicants as possible.  This we have done.  This makes sense.  We are now being asked to require applicants to write about how they would address – and promote -- diversity and inclusivity issues on campus.  Such a requirement (an optional statement in a job application is a requirement; the only option is that if the applicant does not write one, and then he or she will not be fully considered) will decrease the pool of applicants.  This is antithetical to what we have been urged to do. 

In a job application, diversity is synonymous with racial diversity.  As such, to a conservative- or libertarian-identifying candidate, this is tantamount to advising them not to apply, as the line to toe in academia vis-à-vis diversity is clearly defined through a (politically) liberal lens. It also will give pause to any racial minority who does not want to come to a campus where her or his race will be a central part of their academic position.  To believe otherwise is to not understand (political) liberal privilege.  To argue otherwise, under the guise of all viewpoints on diversity being equally valid, I must wonder why we are to be taught “how to read the responses,” as I have been informed will be the case. This begs the questions: what is the “correct” answer?  If all are equally correct, why is the question being asked?

According to the New York State Department of Labor’s website (labor.ny.gov/equal-opportunity/how-to-file-a-discrimination-claim.shtm), political affiliation and belief is to be protected from discrimination:

"Under Federal & New York State laws, discrimination occurs when you are treated differently in a way that causes an adverse impact to you, based on your: race, gender, age, disability, religion, national origin, political affiliation or belief, genetics, arrest and conviction record, marital status, genetic predisposition and carrier status, veteran status, sexual orientation, or retaliation." [emphasis added]

Based on research done (from the journals of Association of Psychological Sciences, The Forum, articles referenced in The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Ed, as well as studies from The Independent Institute), not only are conservative-leaning academics far underrepresented, but also willingly discriminated against by a large percentage of liberal-leaning faculty members.  A telling quote from one of the articles (Unnatural Selection, Chronicle of Higher Education, by Peter Wood) is:

“The most effective way to keep out a whole class of people who are unwelcome isn’t to bar entry, but to make sure that very few in that class will want to enter. If it comes down to it, entry can still be impeded through other techniques, the feminist and the multiculturalist vetoes on the faculty search committee being the deadliest as far as conservatives go, although there are others”

Daniel Klein, Professor of Economics at George Mason, an expert in the field of faculty political attitudes, has said that the fact that academia is left-leaning is not surprising: “[the] `tendencies toward uniformity’ in disciplines and departments, [is] that these tend to build upon themselves.” (Survey finds that professors, already liberal, have moved further to the left, Inside Higher Ed, by Scott Jaschik).

To wit, Colgate must explain why a fantastic teacher, who engages all students equally and fairly, and has glowing reviews from all students, but does not deem it necessary to discuss diversity and inclusivity in, say, a chemistry class, is not welcome at Colgate.  Why do we not want such a teacher?  Please note that the race of such a teacher was not mentioned, either; it discriminates against such a teacher regardless of race.  The discussion of diversity is a politically loaded question, one from which right-leaning candidates will shy away. It lessens political diversity at Colgate and will lead to an even more uneven political structure.

Even more damning is research done by Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers (Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology, Association for Psychological Sciences) in which they conclude, via a large survey, that conservatives have a good basis to fear negative consequences when revealing their political beliefs to colleagues.  “Many social and personality psychologist said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues.”  In fact, more than one in three would discriminate, based on their survey evidence.  Correlatively, “[t]he more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate.”  Even more disheartening is their result proving a blindness to (political) liberal privilege: “[t]he more liberal respondents were, the less they believed that conservatives faced a hostile climate.”

In fact, according to Inbar and Lammers, applying the outcome of Teamsters v. United States, 1977, the current degree of academia’s liberal tilt can actually be considered “prima facie evidence of discrimination.” 

In Colgate’s administrative response to the ACC demands, it was stated that the piloted program for requiring some type of diversity statement from candidates was successful.  Based on this declaration, the following questions merit an answer:

• How are you defining success in this situation?
• What percentage of applicants wrote such a statement?
• Of those who wrote a statement, what percentage addressed racial diversity?
• How are the responses to be interpreted in any substantial way that will aid in the hiring in a specific field other than to screen for the “correct” type of person?
• Is an applicant who does not address such an “option” necessarily precluded from being hired?

The administrative tactic of speaking about a broad definition of diversity while internally implementing a policy of how to interpret responses proves that there is some type of "correct" diversity, which is, of course, hidden in all public responses.   The rhetoric and practice must be the same.  To feel the need to train professors on “how to read the responses to diversity issues” implies that the practice may not be as broad as the rhetoric.

Another affront to academic freedom, and liberty, in general, is your response that “[w]e will do this” when asked for “stronger disciplinary action for hate speech of any kind.” This is a slippery slope and infringes on the right to protected free speech.  Since this new “hate speech” disciplinary action will be implemented, I call for this to be strictly enforced on top-level administrators as well.  Given your response to this particular demand from the ACC, there should be no reason for concern by top-level administrators (and faculty should feel free to audio-record such meetings given that Colgate may be policing students’ words (words very rarely result in a crime, which is why surveillance cameras don’t record audio) on a private bus).  

Hate is a subjective term and will surely only be applied in cases where the “hate” is deemed the correct type of “hate.”  This will have a chilling effect on political viewpoints and free-flowing exchanges of ideas both in and out of the classroom.  Social peer pressure to not allow hurtful dialogue is much more effective than punitive measures based on some (however carefully crafted) definition of “hate.”  Hate crime is one thing (crime); hate speech is another (speech).

The proposed responses to decreasing incidents of racial bias will not help to any significant extent (except for, perhaps, bystander intervention).  The change must be in the social structure at Colgate.  Students must be willing to speak out when such incidents happen.  We must foster student interactions in a non-confrontational, non-academic way, but not in a directed fashion.  Discussions and workshops will not serve as agents of change. For years, Colgate has been putting into place social policies that segregate students by class structure.  We no longer have open, inviting parties; they must be small and by invitation.  Since human nature is to first be attracted to similar people, Colgate is exacerbating self-segregation.  To this end, I find it irresponsible that Colgate is re-implementing strict social policies/policing that were started under Charlotte Johnson, our former Dean of the College.  If you wonder how Colgate got to where we are, look from where we came.  Look at her track record at Dartmouth, where she went after Colgate.  Reimplementation of failed policies is fatuous.

I would propose that on-going meetings (say, every week) between top-level administrators, students, and faculty (and not the ones who helped to craft the list of ACC demands) to hash out the actual problems that students face would prove far more fruitful in creating the type of environment the students deserve.  It would provide an opportunity to get to the real issues that need to be addressed.  Bystander intervention training for students is a good start, but we need more actions like this. A policy heavy on administrative policies and faculty training/intervention will do nothing to ameliorate the student-on-student biases that occur, and should only be implemented if there is evidence of widespread bias among Colgate employees.

I urge that you rescind your response actions that you have stated you will implement.  These well-intentioned policies could easily serve to shape Colgate into a less inclusive, less inviting, less free place. 

Four Points of Concern in Response to the Twenty-one Point Roadmap

by Stanley Brubaker
Professor of Political Science

In discussions in recent days with faculty of diverse backgrounds I heard voices of concern, alarm, and dismay regarding the 21 Point Roadmap negotiated between the administration and the Association of Critical Collegians. 

Accordingly, in consultation with several other members of the faculty, I have drafted a four-point statement of concern, presented below.

If you care to "sign," please send me an email to that effect (sbrubaker@colgate.edu). A simple "yes" will suffice to add your name.

Four Points of Concern in Response to the Twenty-one Point Roadmap

To the Administration of Colgate University: Jeffrey Herbst, President; Douglas Hicks, Provost and Dean of the Faculty; and Suzy Nelson, Vice President and Dean of the College

We, the undersigned, emphatically affirm the right of the students, faculty, and staff to give full expression to their grievances and to work to effectuate change in Colgate’s policies and practices.  At the same time, when a course of action is contemplated regarding Colgate’s fundamental mission and affecting such sensitive areas as freedom of speech, academic freedom and due process, we believe it to be imperative that: 

1) the problems be carefully and reliably identified; 

2) the means used to address the problems be tailored to address the problems effectively;

3) every effort be made to insure that the means do not compromise academic freedom, freedom of expression, or rights of due process; and 

4) the means be adopted only after full deliberation through our established structures of governance.

On all four points, we find the Administration’s response to the Association of Critical Collegians (ACC) to be a cause for serious concern:

1) The problems have not been carefully identified. The testimonials offered by ACC and others as to insults, slights, and indignities are, of course, deeply troubling, but unlike the thoughtfully constructed Campus Climate Survey of 2009, they do not provide reliable evidence of the magnitude or frequency of bias incidents. We have trouble believing that the campus climate has deteriorated so markedly since that survey was completed or that the problems therein identified have suddenly become so urgent that they had to be addressed within the week that James B. Colgate Hall was occupied. Indeed, much of the “evidence” came from anonymous posts over social media. We are left with the disturbing impression that there has been a serious deterioration in race relations on campus of late, but we are left ignorant as to whether that is truly the case.

2) The announced changes and proposals for change sweep across all facets of University life—who is hired, what is taught, the training of staff and their annual evaluations, and even Colgate’s mission.  We remain doubtful, however, as to whether these changes and proposals will effectively address the complaints of the ACC or produce the desired results. Colgate has absolutely no control, for instance, over social media such as Yik Yak, the arena in which many of the hurtful expressions occurred.  Perhaps through our teaching in the future, students will be less likely to make hurtful posts or commit “micro-aggressions,” but training of students, staff, and faculty on how “systemic structures shape power and privilege” and weaving issues of “intersectionality” into the curriculum seem highly problematic and unlikely to produce the desired outcome.  Indeed it could plausibly be argued that they might actually entrench a bias rather than reduce it.

3) Some of the announced changes and proposals, even though well-intentioned, threaten freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of due process. There is fear that students will be encouraged to monitor their professors’ lectures and discussions for evidence of bias. “Diversity advocates” will populate search committees for staff; strengths in promoting an “inclusive environment” will become a criterion for hiring faculty. Students and faculty are to be encouraged to report what they perceive as incidents of bias to the Office of Equity and Diversity for possible referral to a Grievance Process many of us find wanting in safeguards of due process.

4) Finally, changes of the magnitude contemplated by the 21 Point Response should be pursued through the established processes of governance not pronounced by the Administration in negotiation with demonstrators.

Recognizing that the Administration negotiated the 21 Points under difficult circumstances, consulted with various relevant offices within the administration, and reserved some issues for the Board of Trustees and for the Faculty, we nonetheless believe it imperative that we register on these Four Points our profound concern.

Balancing Values As We Move Forward from the Sit-Ins

by Michael Hayes

Professor of Political Science

My research focuses on the public policy process with a particular emphasis on something called “incrementalism.”  According to the model’s originator, Charles Lindblom, rational decision-making is typically precluded by disagreements among participants over how we should make value tradeoffs and what consequences will flow from various policy alternatives.  As a result, policies emerge instead from a highly pluralistic and conflictual process in which a multiplicity of participants with different values, perspectives, information, and interests contend over policy.  Participants tend to focus on proposals that differ only marginally (incrementally) from previous policies, partly because larger changes are political nonstarters and partly because building on past policies enables us to learn from experience, evaluating what worked and what did not and modifying policies accordingly.

                  For this political process to yield “good” results, three conditions must be met: 

1) all interests affected by a policy must be represented in the policy-making process; 

2) there must be no significant inequalities in power or influence among the players; and 

3) the policy process must permit frequent reevaluation of policies and modification where necessary.  

Policy outcomes are typically incremental changes at best; how could they be otherwise where attention is limited to incremental alternatives and participants then bargain and compromise?  Large (nonincremental) change is still possible, however, through a succession of smaller steps that accumulate over time.  Although it is impossible to “solve” problems fully through a once-and-for-all rational process, this is not as disabling as it seems because we can converge on solutions over time through subsequent policy cycles. (Lindblom calls this iterative process seriality). 

     If rational decision-making is in fact impossible most of the time, the real question is not whether to operate through incrementalism (which is basically inevitable) but rather how to make sure incrementalism is operating properly.  As noted above, this means all affected interests must be represented, major imbalances in power among interests need to be remedied, and the political system must allow for periodic reevaluation and modification of policies.

     While all of us, I think, would like to make sure Colgate is a welcoming place for all students, we also value academic freedom in the classroom.  This creates a potential value tradeoff:  to what extent do we have to limit free speech in order to accommodate student sensibilities? How do we arrive at a proper balance? There are also disagreements over consequences of various approaches.  Will policies embodying zero tolerance for hate speech end up curbing the pursuit of truth in the classroom?  Will faculty members worried about how students might react to topics they raise respond by avoiding certain topics altogether? Can we find ways to curb undesirable speech without suppressing desirable speech?

     How can we say what the “best” policy is where two or more sides adhere to very different values? And how can we be sure which alternative to choose when we don’t know enough to predict their respective consequences accurately? Under such circumstances it is smart to build on past policies, confining our attention to modifications that differ only slightly from the status quo.  Radical new steps (“We will do this!”) galvanize opposition. More important, people who should be on the same side—because we really do all want to make Colgate a welcoming place while protecting academic freedom—end up polarizing in opposition to one another.

     As we move forward we need to be realistic about the reality of tradeoffs among values that we cherish as well as the limitations on our ability to predict consequences of any policy we adopt.  We should build on a past policy that gets many things right—more than statements from the administration would imply.  And as we address this important issue over the next few months we need to make sure all affected interests have a voice in the discussion and that no groups are disempowered. Above all, we have to design an ongoing process that permits us to revisit these enduring issues on a regular basis, permitting us to learn from inevitable mistakes and modify policies accordingly.  No one should expect to get everything they want from this first round of discussions; indeed, if anyone gets everything they want from it, the process will not have worked properly. At the same time, no one should expect us to get this right the first time; unanticipated and often undesirable consequences will flow out of any procedures we adopt. The key is to treat this as an ongoing process of trial-and-error, of convergence over time on a workable policy, rather than a pitched battle between polarized groups determined to prevail. I think we are all better than that.

Watch Yourself at All Times

by Michael Johnston

Charles A. Dana Professor of Political Science

Author’s note: this essay, which is aimed mostly but not entirely at a student audience, has also been submitted to the Colgate Maroon-News

[Colgate] University recognizes the need to protect the inviolability of the student’s personal and civil rights: specifically, the right to be secure in one’s person, speech, living quarters, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure; and the freedom from disciplinary sanction except by due process, with avenues of recourse available when a student claims to have been subjected to prejudicious, discriminatory, or capricious treatment.

Colgate University Student Handbook 2014-2015, p. 153.

It would be easy for a Colgate student to read the passage above and feel secure: the University, it seems, promises to uphold fundamental rights and abide by the rule of law. It would be easy—but it would be wrong.

My distinguished career as an elected faculty representative on the University’s Student Conduct Board (SCB) lasted about two hours—long enough for me to attend a training session on a recent afternoon, and then to go home and send an email resigning my position. I was surprised to have been elected, last Spring, but it was clear the job was one to take seriously: just follow the news and you know that campus disciplinary processes have become controversial in many places. Thus it was good to know there would be at least some training for us newcomers, and I arrived at the session interested to learn more and willing to contribute.

By the end of the session, however, it was clear that I could not take part in the SCB and its work with a clear conscience. As for students or anyone else who may be party to a case, if you become involved in SCB proceedings you may find yourself at considerable risk—with very few guarantees and safeguards. That is true whether you are the accused, or the accuser. Witnesses too may find themselves wondering just what their role is, what rules and procedures apply, and whether what they know has been reported accurately—or even at all, in the course of the SCB’s confidential proceedings. Whatever the Student Handbook may appear to say, the best advice I can give is this: Watch yourself at all times.

Now, I have never heard an SCB case or participated in a decision. So where do these dire warnings come from? The main focus of our training session was a powerpoint presentation by an attorney from Bond, Schoeneck, and King (BS&K), the University’s legal counsel. BS&K’s lawyers are smart people, and they know their law, yet the presentation laid out what was, for me, a chilling description of how the SCB does its business.

The attorney explained that the University, as a private institution, need not honor the Constitutional standards one might expect to apply; indeed, “due process” as mentioned in the Student Handbook is due process in “an administrative sense” only. Colgate can “choose what level of rights to afford students,” and is obliged only to observe “fundamental fairness.” Thus, slides that ironically bore that last phrase as their title explained that in SCB proceedings there are no requirements that:

• Parties to a case be allowed legal counsel;

• Criminal procedure rules of evidence be followed;

• Public hearings be held;

• Cases reach a speedy resolution;

• Individuals be able to confront witnesses;

• Parties to a case be compelled to produce witnesses or exculpatory evidence;

• Findings of guilt be unanimous or the judgment of any sort of supermajority;

• Other due process protections under criminal law be upheld.

Bear in mind also that SCB cases are decided on a “preponderance of the evidence” standard. The Board does not need to find the evidence against you to be convincing beyond reasonable doubt, but rather only that more likely than not, the charges are true.

Moreover, there are no required protections against self-incrimination, and the accused has “no right to remain silent without consequence.” That’s a real double-whammy: if an allegation before the SCB should also become the focus of a criminal case (a possibility that lies completely beyond SCB control), anything the accused has said to the Board, including ill-advised remarks made in the absence of legal counsel, is “discoverable”: it can become evidence at trial. Thus, if you are the accused dealing with the SCB, anything you say can be used against you—but so can your silence.

We often think of basic rights and protections as serving the rights of the accused, and in my view those rights are essential. But many recent controversies over campus disciplinary proceedings have had to do with the way accusers and victims have been treated and mistreated, and on that score too there is cause for concern. If you are accusing someone of an offense, the points listed above mean that there is no requirement that you be allowed to have legal counsel, to insist that basic rules of evidence be followed, to challenge witnesses, or to demand that the University handle your case in an expeditious manner.

Will the student, faculty, and administrative members of the SCB who hear your case strive to be “fundamentally fair?” Yes—of that I have no doubt. Will the administrators who oversee the SCB and manage its work protect your rights? That’s less clear, because the University has interests and agendas—most notably, but not only, its public image and financial wellbeing—that do not necessarily line up with yours. Will BS&K monitor the process and step in if your rights are threatened? Don’t count on it: they get paid to protect the University. You would be better off, during SCB proceedings, with a lawyer of your own—oh, wait, you may not be allowed to have one. Indeed, the attorney explained that should your rights be violated in the disciplinary system, redress is not to be found within the university. Your only recourse is to sue.

BS&K’s advice to us was that within the jurisdiction of a private institution, Constitutional standards of due process do not apply. Subject to very broad parameters, the University can establish whatever rules and procedures it wishes, and then is required only to abide by its own standards. In a straightforward legal sense, the attorneys are quite right. SCB does not wield public legal power; it cannot fine or imprison an individual, nor can it award damages to victims. Its function is to judge allegations of misconduct by students as students, and to determine how its findings should affect a student’s continuing presence in our community.

But looked at in other ways it is more powerful than that narrow interpretation alone would suggest. For example, a student who has been suspended may well need to explain, in future job interviews or when applying for post-graduate programs, why it took him or her longer to earn a degree (Colgate discloses disciplinary records if requested by another institution). An organization punished for the actions of some members may face threats to its viability. Fair enough—if we have confidence in the process by which those sanctions were imposed. But do we? And a student who has been victimized by others, and who has brought a charge—a decision that can require genuine courage, particularly in the absence of basic procedural guarantees—may find that while the rumor mill works overtime both on campus and beyond, he or she has no way to demand that the University seek out or consider evidence, allow the other side’s witnesses to be confronted and challenged, or even that it just move the case along toward a prompt conclusion.

Colgate can do better than that. Nothing in the legalities spelled out by BS&K prevents us from doing so. Given current controversies surrounding the handling of sexual assault and other cases, one might think Colgate would have a real interest in upgrading its procedures across the board: SCB, after all, is not the only body dealing with grievances and misconduct of various sorts. But apparently not: when several of us at the training session challenged the justifications and defense offered on behalf of current procedures, we basically got two responses: other private institutions follow similar rules, and while it might be possible to uphold some Constitutional standards, at a place like Colgate it would be inconvenient, expensive, or awkward to do so.

Oh -- umm, sorry to have been a bother.

Quite possibly, procedures at some other schools are even worse. Someday, Colgate may decide to do better. Until then, watch yourself at all times.