Claremont McKenna’s Athenaeum Fellows Jake Petzold CMC ’12 and Clare Riva CMC ’13 have written an open letter to the campus community concerning tomorrow’s Condoleezza Rice event. The letter was submitted to both the Port Side and the CMC Forum. Former Ath Fellows Jeremy B. Merrill CMC ’12 (a Senior Writer for the Port Side) and Pyper Scharer CMC ’13 also signed the letter.
To the CMC community:
As current and former Athenaeum Woolley Fellows, the Athenaeum holds a special place in our hearts – as it does for so many of you. According to its mission statement, the “Athenaeum was conceived as a place where students and faculty could gather for intellectual discourse in an intimate and relaxed setting and integrate their academic and social lives.” What sets the Athenaeum – and CMC – apart from other schools’ speaker series is not the caliber of the speakers alone, but a special setting that enables students, faculty, and guests to engage in a positive and productive exchange of ideas.
Unfortunately, Condoleezza Rice’s appearance on campus Wednesday night does not meet this goal. We feel that Secretary Rice’s lecture, staged in Ducey gym, without a reception or dinner and with an auditorium-style arrangement, can no longer be considered an Athenaeum event.
The changes to the program undermine the spirit of the Athenaeum and intellectual discourse. While we embrace the opportunity for more students to see Secretary Rice, the goal of a true learning experience would be better served by a live stream of an event that features meaningful dialogue. The goal of the Ath is not to get the most people in the room. An audience of 200 students who can engage in meaningful dialogue is preferable to an audience of 400 with no dialogue. For students who won’t have a chance to engage Secretary Rice, what’s the difference between watching her lecture in person or on YouTube? At least through a live stream, students can observe a valuable exchange.
A lot has been made of the fact that Secretary Rice is on a book tour and will likely deliver the same remarks here as she has at every other stop. We don’t mean to dismiss the potential educational value of her talk. However, a one-size-fits-all lecture elevates the importance of the unmediated interactions between students and guests that a reception and dinner offer – in short, the stuff that makes the Ath the Ath. When Donald McKenna and CMC’s early leaders envisioned the Ath, they weren’t hoping that students could get their pictures taken with celebrities. To herald that opportunity as a consolation is a mockery of the Athenaeum’s mission.
We are also extremely troubled by the precedent this change in format and location sets. Dean Huang’s school-wide email cites the “possibility that people who have nothing to do with the Claremont Colleges will attend this rally and/or try to disrupt the program” as the primary security concern behind the move. He adds, “Those individuals, whose numbers we cannot accurately estimate and whose intentions are unclear, may not care to abide by CMC’s rules or the rally organizers’ plans for a peaceful event.” By enabling undefined, unknown, and only possible threats to dictate such a change, the school is caving to a threat that exists for every Ath dinner.
Even if the administration claims the change is a unique reaction to a one-time security challenge, their logic would still apply to any speaker that might inspire vocal opposition. We cannot endorse this potential path toward sterilizing future Ath events. What makes the Ath worthwhile is thought-provoking and important topics and ideas, even when controversial.
We understand the security and logistical challenges the CMC administration faces in staging an event of this scale. However, we feel that the school’s chosen course represents a drastic overreaction to a hypothetical threat – and a dangerous precedent for the Athenaeum and for academic discourse at CMC. Are we done with having prominent or controversial speakers at the Athenaeum? If the administration does not allow us to fairly address meaningful and fundamental issues in this setting, the Athenaeum serves little purpose.
Students can see big-name speakers in large gymnasia at any institution in the country – in fact, probably in much nicer facilities than ours. The Athenaeum is unique to CMC and a vital part of our identity. We think the school’s decisions in this matter threaten that identity. We hope you will join us in discussing the role of the Athenaeum on our campus and how to preserve it in the face of controversy.
Sincerely,
Jake Petzold ‘12
Clare Riva ‘13
Jeremy B. Merrill ‘12
Pyper Scharer ‘13
Paige Costello ’12
David Nahmias ’10
Sarah Roberson ’09
Brian Davidson ’08
Ben Fidler ’08
Aaron Champagne ’10
Luke Johnson ’09
(This post was updated at 7:50 am, November 30 with signatures from three more former Ath Fellows: Costello, Nahmias, and Roberson. Davidson was added at 8:03, Fidler at 9:04, Champagne and Johnson at 5:00)
The Claremont Port Side always welcomes letters to the editor, but the opinions expressed in them are those of the author alone, not necessarily of the Port Side.
Editor’s note: For more coverage of Rice’s visit to Claremont, see our investigation into 5C pepper spray policy, background on the planned protest, a defense of the demonstration, its change of venue and a reflection on the benefits of peaceful demonstration. Check back tomorrow for updates on the Ducey talk and teach-ins.
There is no intended threat posed by the Claremont Consortium-based Teach-In event. We are entirely peaceful, and seek only to provide a forum for discussion.
This event arose precisely BECAUSE so many people wish to draw attention to the actions of Ms. Rice during her time in the Bush cabinet.
The most common allegation is that Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell et al. knowingly propagated false intelligence regarding the presence of WMDs in Iraq. Rice famously fear-mongered, “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” WMDs were, of course, never found (this is ultimately irrelevant with regard to the legitimacy of a war declaration, however, as Saddam posed no immediate threat, and was in no way responsible for 9/11).
Another common allegation is that Rice authorized water-boarding, a type of torture that is prohibited by the Geneva Convention.
Finally, there is the claim that the the administration instigated PREEMPTIVE war of aggression, also prohibited by multiple UN treaties. Today, over 100,000 Iraqis are dead, and conflict is bubbling in Syria and Iran.
The question remains: when will the imperialism end? Must the US go bankrupt before the vampiric, war profiteering military-industrial complex is forced into bankruptcy?
I feel that the Athenaeum should host distinguished guests without disruption, and I hope the event will proceed as intended. However, in the future, the Ath would be wise to consider the repercussions of hosting a figure that is accused of crimes against humanity.
Perhaps also of interest:
1.) Condoleezza Rice Faces Unwelcome at Stanford University
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/05/04/18592816.php
2.) Stanford Anti-War Protesters Want Condi Booted for War Crimes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-trounstine/stanford-anti-war-protest_b_195364.html
3.) Activists Confront Condoleezza Rice at Stanford University
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uVDytkDReY
“My revolution is born out of a love for my people, not hatred of others.” – Immortal Technique
Thank you.
Well it looks like you got your forum to speak on! Good for you. Too bad no one will have the opportunity to actually ASK pointed questions such as these directly TO Condaleeza because there is no Ath style discussion planned. Awesome.
Also, just an idea, I’m assuming you aren’t a CMC student? Because the Athenaeum paid for the speaker to come to CMC’s campus they should have the right to choose whoever they wish. The goal is to get controversial, that is where education lies. Regardless of what Dr. Rice has been accused of, there are things that we could learn from her, it truly doesn’t matter if it offends you as an individual, the lessons that stand to be learned are more important than that. So what’s next? It is comparable to off campus students protesting the Dan Savage talk because the Ath chose a speaker who supports homosexuals and their rights, and those outside students happen disagree with homosexual rights. Yes, you have a right to do it, but should you do it at the cost of ruining the event which you and your school provided no funding or support to create? I think the answer is no. Thank you!
Condoleezza is physically there. You have a voice. Ask your “pointed” question and demand an answer. It’s that simple. Don’t wait for an authority to allow you to exercise your first amendment rights.
There are things we could “learn” from listening to Stalin. We have the opportunity to MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD. She’s had plenty of time to talk. If you want to “learn” from her, buy the book.
Offends me as an individual? Does 100,000+ dead Iraqis offend you? Does the PATRIOT Act offend you?
Everyone has the right to free expression. Period. We don’t intend to prevent the event from occurring; CMC needs to learn what the REPERCUSSIONS are of HOSTING war criminals. It’s that simple. I don’t mind if the Ath wants to invite the antichrist, you’re welcome to–it’s your right. But there will be backlash.
I was told the Ath did not pay for Ms. Rice to come speak but that an alum or group of alumae did. Considering she probably draws an honorarium of around $100,000, I am sad that the entire student body was not given a chance to have a say in how the money was spent. I could be wrong though, which just showcases the need for more transparency regarding Ath speakers and their fees.
As a Pitzer student, I want to say that I fully respect and support the request made by the Fellows. Though the Ath is not a venue I take advantage of regularly (nor is it entirely feasible as I’m not a student at CMC), I completely understand the desire to preserve the tradition that makes the Ath what it is. Frankly, I’m more than a little frustrated with my peers who are putting together the Unwelcoming Event as they are treading on the rights of you, as students of CMC, to take full advantage of the resources at your school. Yes, we are a Consortium. Yes, we share classes together. Yes, we all have friends at various campuses. But does that mean it is okay to interfere with an iconic and treasured institution at a fellow Claremont College? No. Each college has their traditions and we should respect them. Though I do not think the intent of those putting on the Unwelcoming Event is to disrespect the tradition of the Ath as a Claremont McKenna institution, that is exactly what’s happening. I can only imagine the outcry of Pitzer students if a protest was organized regarding some bastion of socialist and anarchist thought speaker, “x”. To politely disagree with Professor Dan Segal, I neither hate democracy nor humanity because I find myself on the opposite side of the fence, and I find the unsaid implication of that comment distasteful.
I don’t agree with Ms. Rice’s politics. I don’t agree with her perspective on American foreign policy. And I certainly don’t agree with the majority of her actions throughout her time in the Bush administration. Slaking the thirst for social change takes more than merely protesting an individual’s actions. I don’t see the point in ruining an opportunity for students to have a conversation with her in the unique way the Ath provides. If we as students at Pitzer college want to see dramatic social change, then we should take an active role in that process. Protesting is easy–producing substantive change is not.
I hope that your letter as Ath Fellows resonates with your respective Administration and that the venue change will be reversed, OR a clear statement will be made that this does not set a precedent for future speakers.
Thank you for this comment. It’s nice to see that there’s at least one student who understands the counterproductivity of taking away the Ath’s unique setting for this speaker.
How will you “produce substantive change” without demonstrating?
SA, you could not sound more like a ranting lunatic on every single on of these comment threads. Get back on your meds and calm down. Also, demonstration is NOT the only way to produce substantive change and I find it pretty funny that you think it is.
EG, thank you. What you’ve outlined is exactly the issue with this protest. No need to repeat everything you’ve said. It’s nice to know that there are at least a few reasonable/mature students at Pitzer who understand the value of dialogue and ‘hearing from both sides.’
1) Ad hominem attacks are the territory of those lacking legitimate arguments
2) I would be the last person to take pharmaceutical drugs
3) What other ways can we “produce” substantive change? I’m curious. The electoral process is not one of them, in case you hadn’t heard.
“It’s nice to know that there are at least a few reasonable/mature students at Pitzer who understand the value of dialogue and ‘hearing from both sides.”
I’ve heard much of what Condoleezza has to say; I’ve been reading about her and listening to her testimonies for two months. PROTEST AND “HEARING FROM BOTH SIDES” ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Can you present a SINGLE sound argument? I haven’t heard a single one from you yet, WOW.
Logically, the intention of the move was not to increase the number of student attendees as stated in the letter, it is more of a security issue. Looking at the architectural structure of the Athenaeum, it is quite harder to evacuate an important personal from various exits than of Duecy gym. The gym offers so much leeway and exits that allows rooms for back-up plans for evacuation. The unintentended consequence of this move was the extra students allowed to attend. It is not the main motive.
sigh-_-
Yes, the main motive was security… but I think the move was quite poorly thought out.
I agree with the main points in the letter – truly, we won’t get anything unique out of this experience. I think if the decision had been better executed, people would be less upset (eg. ACTUALLY letting the ath in on the plans…. and/or making plans for another reception in a place like Ducey.)
Also – there’s a new #OccupyClaremont on Twitter… Don’t know how I feel about that.
Feel good about it.
I find it interesting that whenever in the face of controversy, people always feel the need to do something and can never just stay the course. It’s like all those hockey videos where you see the goalie let in the puck because he didn’t just stay still but felt like he had to move.
The goal for the speaker series is to receive the speakers in the ath, not to be as secure as possible or as big as possible. Letting the actions of others alter our goal is failure.
Indeed, Huang overreacted. There was absolutely no threat to Condoleezza, and the CMC administration acknowledged this. They cited “people from the community” who might pose a threat. Who showed up from the community? The elderly.