Column: The unradical left

Gone are the days in which the radical left was interesting. In fact, I'm not even sure if there is a radical left anymore, precisely because that would entail having something radical to say. What possibility remains to shock those cosmopolitan enough to feel at home on a campus like Duke's? A lot of people may disagree with the agendas of homosexual marriage, abortion, affirmative action, anarcho-syndicalism, animal rights, equalizing wealth distribution, gun control, minority exceptionalism and radical democracy, but few, if any, really find these ideas shocking or dangerous. And why should they? None, we assume, will have the power in the near future to revolutionize society overnight, some look good on paper, and in the meantime they serve as nutty amusement for those who know better. Interestingly, the only ideas that now rile people up on campus are generally conservative ones, like the peculiar thoughts that reparations are racist, abortion is murder and homosexual relations are perverse. A recent event highlighted the extent of this transformation and succeeded in scaring the hell out of me. I didn't think it could happen, at least not the way it did. A year ago it seemed impossible. But alas, it did happen: I listened to the worst lecture I have ever heard at Duke, for the second time. What's worse--it didn't sound that awful.

First some history: I became an RA second semester sophomore year. I have enjoyed being an RA and think I have contributed a great deal to the residential life of many students. However, my first day on the job two years ago, namely winter training, led me to believe I had made a mistake. We were subjected to a daylong diversity talk. The speaker spent one whole sentimental hour discussing her own coming out story, berated those who opposed gay marriage, equated the pro-life position with intolerance and explained all the unjust privileges of being a white Christian man. It ended with (I am not kidding) a long puppet show to enlighten us on the difference of perspectives. Keep in mind the lesbian puppet show lady, as she was not so fondly remembered by some of the RA staff, was there for the purpose of training us as residential advisors.

Since that event I have kept a running list of the worst lectures I have seen on campus. Last year, I received an RA Gold Credit for listening to a speech by one Becky Thompson in the Mary Lou Williams Center for black culture. Though she described Duke as being "in the midst of a racial apartheid" and called our admissions department a "bastion of white supremacy," she didn't quite have a level of sanctimony to compare with the puppet show lady. Last year's anti-war rally hosted by Fred Jameson, which featured, among other things, a goth-looking speaker complete with dark makeup and fishnet stockings as well as an audience that looked like it was preparing for Halloween, was out there, but funny. One paper that interpreted the actions of George Bush through the heuristic device of Madonna's music videos was particularly creative. I got there too late to see Jameson's speech, so I'm sure I missed the best part. Fred Jameson did greet me once at another lecture, at which he asked the speaker a question and promptly exited. There have been other gems out there, but nothing ever really seemed more inappropriate and ridiculously shallow than the lesbian puppet show lady.

When she returned this year and gave much the same talk to the RA staff (alas, this time minus the puppet show and the abortion comments), it didn't, and this is the scary part, sound that bad. Sure, it was five hours of shallow platitudes about different perspectives, and every attempt to challenge contradictory statements was deflected as a misguided effort to get intellectual when we really had to be concerned about the heart. Though it relegated all belief to personal "value judgments" (except for her values, which were called facts), and implicitly condemned the "values" of many in the audience, the talk flowed like a stand up comedy routine. One girl in the audience, very insightfully, pointed out that if the administration took everything we were told seriously, it never would let people like David Horowitz step foot on campus. Time ran out, however, before we could explore the consequences of intolerance in the name of tolerance. It was a token diversity talk, and while myself and others disagreed with much that was said, it wasn't that painful.

While I agree with fellow columnist Kevin Ogorzalek's contention last week that tolerance of conservative thought is a "masquerade" at Duke, his advice for those who dissent from liberal orthodoxy--"Let's enjoy these views, debate substantively, but not carry on about the University being liberal"--sells us short of a decent education. This begs the question, for it presumes that being a leftist bastion is the nature of a University--that even if we see through the bulls---, we can't expect much more.

The moment that token, leftist diversity talks become comfortable for everyone, regardless of contrary belief, is the moment that the capacity for critical thought has ceased. It suggests that there is no important relation between the events the University sponsors and the education we receive here, and, moreover, that ideas do not have consequences. Conservative is what you call people who want to protect their own money or privilege, and liberal names truly free thinking individuals, even if sometimes misguided. Thus liberal education means being educated by liberals. However, we should reject this formulation not only because it is wrong, but also because the left has become boring. The only profound and interesting question left to ask these days is whether the guiding premises of liberal ideology that pervade much of what we do on campus are, themselves, mistaken. Our ability to come to terms with this radical thought, would signal the beginning of a liberating education.

Bill English is a Trinity senior. His column appears every other Monday.