The Alexander Hamilton Center stirs hopes - and fears
No. 384
http://www.popecenter.org/clarion_call/article.html?id=1746
Details & Timed Actions
November 02, 2006
On October 13, the institution where I teach, Hamilton College, announced that an alumnus had committed $3.6 million to support the creation of the Alexander Hamilton Center for the Study of Western Civilization. The charter of the new Center clearly sets forth its reason for existence: “The reasoned study of Western civilization, its distinctive achievements as well as its distinctive failures, will further the search for truth and provide the ethical basis necessary for civilized life.” In the past, most colleges required a core curriculum that provided students with a proper grounding in Western civilization. But over the last forty years or so, a cafeteria-style model of education, touted at Brown University and other prestigious universities, in which students now enjoy the freedom to pursue their own tastes by choosing from an ever expanding menu of exotic entrées has replaced a required, coherent set of courses that privileges Western civilization.
AHC follows the lead of several other schools that have established similar academic centers. Princeton, for example, has established the James Madison Program, which has brought some excellent scholars and a very different point of view to that campus. What we intend to foster, and again quoting from the AHC charter, is “an educational environment of the highest standards in which evidence and argument prevail over ideology and cant.” The AHC is not a right-wing think tank, but a vehicle to pursue a clearly defined educational mission. We will begin active programming in the fall of 2007, with a focus on a Hamilton graduate of 1818, the famous abolitionist Gerrit Smith. My co-founders and I intend to implement a series of events that will interrogate the abolitionist understanding of freedom, how it was shaped by the Second Great Awakening and contributed to the elaboration of a capitalist system in the northern United States.
Our second year will investigate property rights – how they were understood by the Founders, the importance of private property rights as a guardian of our other rights, and the history of the Fifth Amendment that bears on the controversial Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London. We plan to devote our third year, the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, to an examination of Garry Wills’ central argument in his book Lincoln at Gettysburg, the notion that Lincoln pulled a sleight of hand and redefined the meaning of the Union by folding the Declaration of Independence into the Constitution. We will explore primarily for the benefit of Hamilton College undergraduates how this country’s greatest statesmen have understood the relationship between those hallowed documents.
You wouldn’t think that the creation of the AHC would stir up any controversy – unless you’re familiar with the prevailing academic culture. Alas, Hamilton’s faculty has not embraced the enterprise. Indeed, one faculty committee, apprised of the center not as a requirement but as a matter of collegial etiquette by one of my co-founders, responded by rewriting the charter within a fortnight and submitting it to us for acceptance. We said, “No thank you.”
At October’s faculty meeting, the first since the college announced the AHC’s creation, faculty members debated and voted on a resolution signed by two dozen of my colleagues. The “unprecedented and unacceptable autonomy” of the Center, they complained, demanded that the charter be amended to ensure far greater faculty input and oversight. A “general rationale” for the resolution appeared above the names of the signatories. It indicated their anxieties about the Center’s “programming and research” and how both would “influence the reputation of Hamilton College.”
What subversion does AHC seek to promote? Why, nothing less than “excellence in scholarship through the study of freedom, democracy and capitalism as these ideas were developed and institutionalized in the United States and within the larger tradition of Western culture.” The central concerns of the Center include the meaning and implications of capitalism, the moral basis for democracy, government as a potential threat to justice, and the role of merit and hierarchy in the formation of civilization.
Somehow, to the resolution’s signatories, the investigation of these and related issues by the Center portends dire consequences. Among the signatories were tenured faculty whose own programming and research in the recent past had been responsible for bringing or attempting to bring to the College as teachers or speakers Brigette Boisselier, the high priestess of cloning for the Raelian cult movement; Susan Rosenberg, a convicted felon; and Ward Churchill, one of the most clever academic poseurs of his generation.
Is there really any need to worry about the governance of the AHC? An outside board of accomplished scholars advises the director of the center on programming and initiatives. A nine-member board of overseers supervises the director, ensures transparency and accountability of the Center’s operation, and insulates it from the vicissitudes of personality in the administration and from politicized factions of the faculty. The faculty resolution declared it to be “crucial” that “representatives of the Hamilton College community have input into the operation and governance of the AHC.” But who counts as members of the Hamilton community? Apparently not the trustees and alumni, nor, for that matter, students or staff. By inference from the resolution, they have all suffered a kind of social death. The founders of AHC have a more inclusive definition and will recruit trustees and distinguished alumni to the board of overseers.
The resolution passed by a vote of 77 to 17, without about a hundred no-shows. When asked to comment on the vote and the motivations of the faculty opposition to AHC, I sought counsel from none other than Alexander Hamilton himself. In Federalist #1, he wrote that the plan of the Constitution “affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.” That sentence applies as much to the AHC today as it did to the proposed Constitution in 1787.
Several Hamilton faculty members have risen to demand changes in the governance of the Center, prefacing their remarks by saying that they have “no problem” with the creation of the Center, but are merely concerned about its autonomy. Perhaps so, but I propose a little test. Can any faculty member at Hamilton produce from his or her personal archive, or from the archive of any relevant faculty committee or from the files of the dean any piece of paper expressing concern about the autonomy of any other faculty programmatic initiative in the last 25 years? Without such discovery, I remain dubious about the consistency of principle in the motives of at least some of the opponents.
“The consciousness of good intentions,” Alexander Hamilton maintained, “disdains ambiguity.” In that spirit, here is the charter: Have a look for yourself.
Robert Paquette is Professor of American History at Hamilton College and the Executive Director of the Alexander Hamilton Center. Reproduced here with permission of the author.
hb
15 Comments
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (15)
I'd suggest he look at the minutes of the Faculty Meetings between November 2004 and February 2005, where a number of faculty members--including Professor Paquette himself--tried to intervene in the programming of the Kirkland Project. In the end, the college in fact insisted that the Kirkland Project re-form itself in a way that reduced its autonomy.
To begin with, I would like to summarize the events as I see them which have lead to this insanity. The Kirkland Project was a well funded organization committed to social justice, focusing on issues of race, class, gender, sexuality, disability that functioned within the Hamilton community. Years of operating with little administrative oversight or, frankly, adult supervision resulted in the noble goals of the organization being tarnished by some incredibly stupid decisions.
I am not, nor have I ever been, a dark-sider. While I did not agree with most, if not all, of the political stances espoused by the Kirkland Project, I did find value in many of their activities.
They brought Karen Finley to campus. Regardless of your opinions on Ms. Finley’s “art” there is no denying that she served and integral role in the evolution of her field. I disapprove of any state funding of her activities, but thanks to the Kirkland project, I can articulate why.
They brought progressive lesbians to campus to present sadomasochistic sexual techniques. Now that might sounds shocking and revolting to many readers who have graduated years before me, please keep a few key facts in mind. Sexuality plays an incredibly important and, arguably dangerous, role in a modern college-student’s life. Gone are the days when such topics were confined to mid-winter road-trips to Smith or the “gentlemens” clubs in Utica. As an EMT on campus I saw first hand the impact that excessive alcohol, young hormones, and lack of parental supervision can have on the young men and, now, women of Hamilton. While lectures on lesbian sex may not be the most valuable approach to sex education, the Kirkland Project was the ONLY group on campus even raising the issue of sex. While I can say that I haven’t put anything I “learned” in that lecture into practice, it did force my friends and I to take a long look at what our own views of sex were and what role it should play in our lives.
They provided a format in which more “progressive” students could interact. I do not favor diversity for diversity’s sake. I think the drive for an institution to become inclusive can obscure the fact that such students and their views can play a valuable role. I came to Hamilton a conservative and I left one as well. But the meetings and events and discussions that I participated in forced me to carefully examine my own beliefs and resulted in a richer understanding of and belief in my own principles.
As a conservative student, I valued the existence of the Kirkland Project as a unique attempt to bring some minority opinions (and new ways of thinking) to what is an essentially closed campus. Many intellectually curious individuals such as myself see great value in holding their own opinions up to scrutiny because the process itself can serve to strengthen the logic behind them. I am, and always will be, grateful to the Kirkland project for that opportunity.
So what happened? Some incredibly silly people did an incredibly stupid thing. And now my college is about to tear itself apart.
Professor Paquette blithely states that “You wouldn’t think that the creation of the AHC would stir up any controversy – unless you’re familiar with the prevailing academic culture.” A witty barb to be sure, but at the same time seems to dismiss the very possibility of well founded reservations concerning what is, at best, a poorly understood initiative.
Allow me to outline some of the concerns that I have with the professor’s post:
Professor Paquette challenges his readers to explain what is so dangerous about an independent organization dedicated to “excellence in scholarship through the study of freedom, democracy and capitalism as these ideas were developed and institutionalized in the United States and within the larger tradition of Western culture.”
My first response is nothing.
But then again, three years ago I saw nothing wrong with an organization “committed to social justice, focusing on issues of race, class, gender, sexuality, disability, as well as other facets of human diversity” either. Simply put, that mission statement is so absurdly broad that it calls into question the reasons for the center’s existence. Liberals, already known for their paranoid tendencies, have every right to see boogie-men in such statements. I am in favor of freedom, democracy, and capitalism. More to the point, I know of VERY few Hamilton community members who aren’t. College professors obviously tend to the liberal side, but I don’t know of many who would abandon their capitalist tendencies in the process. I am wary of any idea that is so broad that it must appeal to all.
Such ideas are rarely successful and almost always serve as a smoke screen for a hidden agenda. Liberals are wary of such things because they developed this tactic in the 1960s and was later perfected by both Bill Clinton in healthcare. It was so effective that it seems George Bush used it to develop his Iraq policy. Bad ideas evolve in a vacuum where they can escape the forging found in the peer review process. As a conservative, I have learned to place my confidence in the market place of ideas as a mechanism to ensure my own beliefs and ideas meet the highest standards possible. Perhaps if Professor Paquette had been lucky enough to have experienced the Kirkland project, he could have learned this as I did.
Second, in an attempt to address the concerns of his peers surrounding the autonomy of the center, Professor Paquette challenges them to “produce from his or her personal archive, or from the archive of any relevant faculty committee or from the files of the dean any piece of paper expressing concern about the autonomy of any other faculty programmatic initiative in the last 25 years?”
I am baffled by this statement. Are we to infer that the solution to the damage done by the Kirkland Project is to repeat the same mistakes? Are we to expect that our faculty has learned nothing from the embarrassments of the last three years? Are we to have such overwhelming faith in Paquette and his ilk that the embarrassment inflicted by the poor decisions of the Kirkland Project won’t be repeated because now he will be the one making the mistakes?
Please.
Any institution that operates within the context of Hamilton College owes it to the school, the community, and the alumni to protect the standing, reputation, and name of the institution. The College has an equal responsibility and it exercises that responsibility through oversight. I am not disgusted by the moves of the Kirkland Project as I am by an administration that failed to either provide sufficient oversight to prevent such abuses or to clearly articulate that the group did not represent the views of the entire Hamilton Community. Ward Churchill was a cold wake-up call to the dangers of such sloppiness. It would seem to me that any rational conservative could see the impact of such negligence.
Professor Paquette has appointed himself as the conservative voice of the campus. If he wishes to continue in the role (and control the staggering funds of the Hamilton Center) he owes it to both himself and the conservatives in the college community to act above reproach. To resort to such intellectually lazy arguments such as “you let the Kirkland Project get away with it, why can’t I?” is to tarnish his name, the goals of the Center, and our collective political views.
Last, and perhaps most perplexing, is the very nature of the proposed institution. Paquette seems shocked and dismayed that a group dedicated to “the study of freedom, democracy and capitalism” could meet such resistance.
To this day I still fondly remember my philosophy classes with Professor Simon where we spent hours discussing the nature and consequences of free will. Professor Simon had an amazing ability to form the types of question that can cause a young mind like mine to consider new sides to an argument. Those discussions were broken up by side-bars concerning the role of freedom in the state and, his personal favorite, rants about the fallacies concerning moral relativism.
On the D.C. program I had the pleasure and challenge of spending a semester in our nation’s capitol where I learned first hand the role and meaning of democracy from the two best teachers I could have asked for: Professor Anechiarico and the Federal government. I was so passionate about the subject that after graduation I found myself serving a short role as a political consultant.
My question is this: has the state of academics deteriorated so quickly over the past six years that the government department no longer teaches democracy? That the Philosophy department no longer discusses freedom? Am I to understand that the message is no longer articulated despite the fact the same faculty is teaching the same courses? And if so, isn’t that the problem we should be addressing?
It is easy to forget that Robert Paquette, Douglas Ambrose, and James Bradfield play a role in the college beyond that of agitators. They are members of the college faculty and as such have a duty to uphold the traditions of academic excellence both inside the classroom as well as out. The college should be performing those tasks, they have a duty to challenge the leadership for an explanation as to why.
I, for one, would like to see them begin with the economics department. After all, if James Bradfield isn’t teaching “capitalism” in his class “Theory of Financial Markets”, what exactly is he teaching?
Deep down, everyone wants to be a liberal. They are the people who believe everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. They believe we should give peace a chance. They believe we should give to the needy. They believe in the inherent goodness of man. They believe we can all just get along.
Conservatism, effective conservatism, has always been the path of the realist. I am a conservative because I have seen too many bad things happen to good people. I have seen voices silenced by oppressors, the weak victimized by the strong, and the dangers of a mob mentality. I believe in the first 10 amendments to the constitution, especially the second. I believe the weak need protecting and that is why we have a standing army. I believe extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and I believe moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
I believe these things not because I want to; I have always envied the Pollyannas of the liberal camp. I believe these things because I have to, the very logic of the matter dictates it.
Conservatives are rational realists and, as such, Professor Paquette owes it to us all to ensure that the precepts of his organization are above reproach, intellectually firm, and clearly articulated.
He should welcome the input of fellow professor who attempt to shape his views, not dismiss them.
He should carry the message to the entire college community, not trying to carve off a sympathetic slice.
He should see that in the vast market place of ideas at Hamilton, he has some of the best wares to offer.
But he doesn’t. He attempts a childish ploy to take his intellectual ball and go home with it. I agree with his assessment that there is something terribly wrong with the state of the faculty at Hamilton College. I think that any time that two professors with publications such as “Statism in the Old South: A Reconsideration” (in a book titled Slavery, Race, and Southern History) expect to spend millions of dollars in the dead of night with no college supervision, we have a duty to ask questions. The very first of which should be if they have completely transcended idealism and planted both feet firmly in the naive when they expect no one to ask for clarification on their mission.
I do not profess to know what their motives are, but I do draw comfort from the fact that the faculty is endeavoring to find out. We have made this mistake once, I am glad to see that some have learned from it.
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
You have said it all in a way that I never could. Thank you.
Penny Watras Dana, K'78
I sincerely hope that Professor Paquette will find the time to address these concerns in this forum. I couldn’t help but notice that his original post, along with that of George Leef which you link to above, dos not allow for comments to be posted.
These are matters that the conservative alumni and community members should be discussing. Our collective identity will be tied to his actions with or without our consent and if he should continue to smear the faculty and name of our institution in open forums, he owes us some answers.
Although I can’t help but note that if two Kirkland Alumnae are applauding Goldwater quotes I am left with even more doubt as to many of his assertions.
Supporting “autonomy” for faculty groups we like and opposing it for groups we don’t like seems unlikely to get us very far. The best way to ensure that faculty initiatives serve the interest of the College is to insist that their mission statements are clear and that they remain faithful to those missions. I had nothing to do with the creation of AHC, but I find its mission statement clear, thoughtful, and scholarly. I look forward to its inaugural programs on abolitionism, property rights, and constitutional understandings
Ted Eismeier
(email posted by request)
I am reliably informed that
Three faculty meetings (11/2/2004; 12/7/2004; and 2/1/2005) took place from November 2004 to February 2005.
The lone entry recorded for Bob Paquette was for the meeting of 12/7/2004 and reads as follows:
"Bob Paquette said he had been collecting documents including a statement from John Jay's president and a text called Big Dance that he would be happy to share with anyone who was interested.
He also read a statement from Mary Jo White, United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, to Sam Shoquist, Regional Administrator, U.S. Parole Commission which outlined Rosenberg's commitment to violent actions against individuals."
repeat "Rosenberg's commitment to violent actions against individuals"
Documented facts are funny things.
From The Spectator Article:
“Those who voted to adopt the resolution objected to the structure of the Board of Overseers in the Charter, which states that this board ‘will consist of nine members…drawn from the Board of Trustees of Hamilton College, Hamilton College alumni, Hamilton College faculty, and institutional and educational leaders from outside the Hamilton Community.’ It was this last group of board members that some faculty disapproved of, in conjunction with the fact that the Charter provides for ‘one member of the Board of Overseers [to] be a member of the Hamilton College faculty (not including the Executive Director of the Center).’ Therefore, in theory only one member of the Hamilton faculty could be present on the board, while the rest of the board members could be unaffiliated with the College.
“Associate Professor of Philosophy Katheryn Doran read the resolution on the floor:
‘Any Hamilton College supported organization that puts at the center of its mission the education of Hamilton College undergraduates – as does the AHC, rightly – should be governed from within the College. On our view the proposed AHC is not. To be sure College organizations should be free to seek external advice and counsel, but to have the majority of the positions on the main governing board potentially held by people who are not affiliated with Hamilton puts Hamilton’s institutional autonomy in jeopardy.’”
From an old Spectator article entitled, "Whatever Happened to the Kirkland Endowment?" by Jennifer Potter Hayes, K’73:
“In 1978 when Hamilton and Kirkland combined, the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of Kirkland recommended that Kirkland’s endowment be transferred to Hamilton and ‘with the approval of all living donors be operated as a separate fund known as the Kirkland Endowment. The transfer to Hamilton would continue the restrictions placed on the time and purpose of use of each fund by its original donor or donors together with a restriction that the endowment be used to support women and their needs and interests at Hamilton.’
“Further, the Board recommended that an Advisory Committee, consisting of a student, a faculty member, and three Kirkland alumnae, be established to ‘adopt policies and procedures to assure that the donor and women’s purpose restrictions are observed and to recommend to the Hamilton Board of Trustees any and all specific uses to be made of the funds comprising the Kirkland Endowment.’
“The Endowment consists of both unrestricted funds, which are distributed at the discretion of the Hamilton Board of Trustees with recommendations from the Advisory Committee, and restricted funds, which comprise the largest part of the Kirkland Endowment.”
Even with its origins in the tumultuous merger of the two colleges, from this Spectator summary it is clear that there was never any potential that control over the operation of the Kirkland Project could possibly reside with those who were unaffiliated with Hamilton.
In performing a review of the Kirkland Project and reformulating it as the Diversity and Social Justice Project, Hamilton exercised its control over the Kirkland Project. In addition, Hamilton revamped its policies and procedures concerning oversight of campus groups.
The concern expressed by some of the Hamilton faculty over the governance provisions of the Alexander Hamilton Center Charter simply has nothing to do with “supporting ‘autonomy’ for faculty groups we like and opposing it for groups we don’t like”. There was never any question of the Kirkland Project being governed and controlled by persons who had no affiliation with Hamilton College. The same cannot be said of the Alexander Hamilton Center, as the wording of the governance document now stands.
The respective mission statements of both the Kirkland Project and the Alexander Hamilton Center are irrelevant to the significant and validly concerning governance issues posed by the relevant provisions of the AHC’s charter.
Penny Watras Dana, K'78
A cursory look at the listing of members of the KP Coordinating Council, nets what appears to be a listing of Hamilton faculty.
Penny Watras Dana, K'78
The hostility of academia to objective and dispassionate study and research of Western culture is pervasive. I seem to recall something awhile ago about Yale University receiving a very substantial gift from an alumnus or his estate to establish a program in the study of Western culture, and Yale ignoring the terms of the bequest and using the funds for some other purpose. When the donors found out about it, they demanded Yale return the money, sparking a series of nasty lawsuits (as if there are any other kind).
Too bad Hamilton's administration can't muster the courage to combat this insidious bias and discriminatory intolerance to the open exchange of ideas on the part of those faculty members who should know better. They are all for freedom of speech, but only as long as it advances their own political agendas.
November 3, 2006 at 09:26AM | Bryan Kirkpatrick, '72
"We will begin active programming in the fall of 2007, with a focus on a Hamilton graduate of 1818, the famous abolitionist Gerrit Smith. My co-founders and I intend to implement a series of events that will interrogate the abolitionist understanding of freedom, how it was shaped by the Second Great Awakening and contributed to the elaboration of a capitalist system in the northern United States."
Kind of radical & frightening, don't you think?