Dealing With Offensive Ideas on Campus

Frank Bruni argues well for the vital principle of promoting a diversity of views on college campuses. But his application of it to the shouting down of Charles Murray at Middlebury College is misplaced — although no one should defend for a moment the physical confrontation after Mr. Murray’s appearance.

African-American children are exposed continually to the insidious cultural message that they are inferior in cognition to whites. When an advocate of eugenics-oriented bigotry appears on campus, is it any wonder that students of color and their friends would cry out: “No more! We won’t hear it!”?

Rational debate is the lifeblood of a college campus, but it can become infected by a position that perverts reason. Charles Murray packages hate speech in a box of scholarly jargon. It’s an old, old, meanspirited ploy. We should all stand with those students who turned their backs on Mr. Murray to say, Never Again.

ROBERT WEISBUCHMONTCLAIR, N.J.

The writer is professor emeritus of English at the University of Michigan and former president of Drew University and of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation.

To the Editor:

The bulk of college students — certainly those on my campus — are wonderfully bright, industrious and highly motivated. It is a privilege and delight to teach them. It is true, though, that our campuses are being terrorized by smaller groups of students, some of whom seek to suppress the free exchange of ideas, with speech codes and even violence, as at Middlebury College.

It is easy to blame these immature young ones for the mayhem they cause. Instead, I would blame the boards of trustees or regents, whose members seem to lack the spine to support the presidents they hire in the administration of the tough disciplinary measures needed to guide and goad these unruly young ones toward more civilized conduct.

I hope that after investigating the incident, Middlebury metes out the appropriate disciplinary measures. Some of the rioting students probably deserve to be expelled.

UWE REINHARDTPRINCETON, N.J.

The writer is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University.

To the Editor:

As a former Middlebury student, I am conflicted by the On Campus article by Prof. Allison Stanger (“Understanding the Angry Mob at Middlebury That Gave Me a Concussion,” nytimes.com, March 13). On the one hand, no speaker deserves violence. But as a gay Latino, I find it troubling that students of color are continuously burdened to try to understand dissenting viewpoints that dehumanize us.

When Charles Murray first visited Middlebury in April 2007, we did as Professor Stanger and others are suggesting now: We organized peacefully against Mr. Murray. Where did that get us? The word “faggot” was written on my door, and swastikas were drawn on a number of students’ doors. And I blame Mr. Murray’s invitation to speak, and his “research,” for emboldening some students to commit these hateful acts.

I don’t condone violence and I never will, but I do applaud those current students who turned their backs on Mr. Murray and drowned him out. Hate shouldn’t be preached.

BRIAN PACHECO, NEW YORK

To the Editor:

Highlighting a recent incident at Middlebury College, Frank Bruni ascribes much of the blame for this refusal to listen to opposing views to “emotional coddling” and “intellectual impoverishment” at colleges. But why do schools, from kindergarten to universities, catch so much of the blame for faults that are pretty obviously embedded in our society?

Today’s college students have grown up in an atmosphere saturated by interruptions, insults, disruptions and dismissals, often by our most visible “leaders.” Think of the highly contentious arguments on “The McLaughlin Group” (interruptions of “Wrong!”); the Tea Party’s and pro-Obamacare groups’ disruption of town hall meetings; Donald Trump’s repeated interruptions, shouting and denigration of his adversaries in the primary debates; and Senator Mitch McConnell’s recent silencing of Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Students must be educated to listen, reflect, and reply or refute, but it’s important to realize that colleges and universities are generally redressing this problem in society, not causing it.

ROBERT BRACKENBURYCINCINNATI

The writer is emeritus professor of cancer biology at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine.

To the Editor:

Frank Bruni assumes that reason still has power. If only. Bringing reason and sound argument to the table these days is like bringing a pillow to a gunfight. Misinformation isn’t just winning, it’s trouncing the truth. The New York Times and others have worked valiantly refuting misinformation, yet vast numbers of Republicans are still convinced that climate change is a hoax, millions of fraudulent votes were cast in the last election, President Obama tapped Donald Trump’s phone, and Islam is a religion of terrorists.

Sadly, even the most rigorous rational arguments fail to sway those who have made up their minds to the contrary. However, I do agree with Mr. Bruni that colleges need to toughen people up. We are going to need it in the post-reason age.

KENT CHASSONBELLINGHAM, WASH.

To the Editor:

The actions of protesters at the Charles Murray lecture at Middlebury College were obnoxious but not, I think, darkly ominous. The students’ daily grind gets dull. Protests are good sport and rich in emotion. The only requirement is to show up and maybe scrawl something on foam board with a Magic Marker. You don’t even have to read the book. What’s not to love about an hour on a soapbox, fully revved up and feeling superior?

Administrators don’t have to react harshly, just with the simple admonition that those who don’t play nice can’t be at the party. For the rest of the year, bar the protesters from all lectures from visiting speakers, even — and especially — the ones they agree with.

MARGARET MCGIRRGREENWICH, CONN.

To the Editor:

Frank Bruni is absolutely right about the need for ideological diversity on college campuses. However, his critique of the “melee at Middlebury College” suggests that the behavior of an unnamed few is representative of not only the entire student body at Middlebury, but also colleges across the nation. I teach at Mr. Bruni’s alma mater, and I don’t know a single colleague who shields students from difficult ideas. Indeed, challenging assumptions is the essence of what we do in our classrooms.

The vast majority of our students welcome this, and I am routinely impressed by their willingness to rethink their own convictions (and challenge mine). To diagnose an entire generation based on the acts of an especially vocal few is nothing more than armchair psychology and pseudo-sociology.

CARY LEVINE, CHAPEL HILL, N.C.

The writer is an associate professor of art history at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

To the Editor:

Most of those who believe that campuses are losing their status as bastions of free speech attended college decades ago, when it was the only avenue for sheltered former suburbanites to gain access to other points of view. However, times have changed. Now, it is impossible for young liberals to isolate themselves from rhetoric that they strongly disagree with. Our president attacks minority groups in legislation and with words. The dialogue of the internet is often dominated by those who seek nothing more than to offend and scare others. There is no “comfortable bubble” for us. We are constantly inundated with ideas that are not only different from our own, but actively repulsive. If we choose to protest bigots like Charles Murray, that is within our rights.

CHLOE ROSENBERGPROVIDENCE, R.I.

The writer is a student at Brown University.

Correction:March 22, 2017

Because of an editing error, a letter on Sunday, about dealing with offensive ideas on campus, omitted part of a foundation’s name in an identification note. The writer, Robert Weisbuch, is a former president of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation.

A version of this article appears in print on , Section SR, Page 10 of the New York edition with the headline: Dealing With Offensive Ideas. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe