- Old Timer on CMC Celeb: Isaac Goldberg: "This interview is going to the first of many skeletons in the closet f..."
- Who Dat? on CMC Celeb: Isaac Goldberg: "Goldberg plays a smooth 2nd base, and has mastered the swinging bunt...."
- A Mitch on Photo Essay: Swim and Track Meets: "good lines, maybe try some canted framing to make the races feel more ..."
- Kimberly M. on CMC Celeb: Isaac Goldberg: "The ex-Navy Seal is the best part of the Washington Program. <3..."
- Adam Smillie on CMC Celeb: Isaac Goldberg: "Isaac Goldberg, you're me hero......"
This Week in the CMC Sandbox
Claremont McKenna is widely lauded as a hotbed for political discourse, and this week was no different. The running feud between two dominant groups– the self identified “Left Hand of the Jungle Gym” and the right-leaning “Equipment Free Independents”– hit a fever pitch.
It all started when the Lefties decided to talk to the teachers about the changing relationship between the two groups. Andy Flu, speaking for the Lefties, had this to say: “When I became Head Lefty, I thought we needed a more open discussion about cooties and playground life with the Indies. This job is harder than people think. Sure we might not have accomplished all of our goals, but … – but I think we’re cool. That’s what matters, right?” Chucky Jo was
in no mood for pussyfooting, and quickly riled up his fellow “Indies,” starting a chant of “Facts! Facts! We’ve got lots of random Facts!” in response.
An Indie, who commented only on repeated assurances of anonymity, lamented the strident turn in discourse: “I don’t get why he has to be so angry all the time. We’re all just kids looking to enjoy a little recess, and I don’t know if the Lefties are going to let me on their jungle gym anymore.” (Note this farce was in no way supposed to be a commentary of the writing ability of the parties involved. I’m confident all of them can write at above a second grade level.)
Seriously though, sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. How else do you explain articles like this? Remember when you were five or so and the coolest thing would be to try on your parents’ clothes and play grown up? For some reason these people want to relive that. They bitch and moan about this or that journalistic rule, who deleted what comment when, and have the audacity to call it political discourse. It’s immature and childlike.
What really pisses me off, though, is this implicit assumption that when these clowns talk about political discourse on campus that they are the political discourse on campus– elevated and made official by their institutions. They wrap themselves in the garb of mature journalism, when what they’re really doing is far from it:
“My piece calls not only for increased dialogue but also for civility. Commenting on and responding to Johnson’s arguments is fine; I encourage that. But let’s try not to use this comment section to bash him as a person and student. That’s not the type of dialogue in which the Port Side seeks to engage conservatives.” – Michelle Kahn
With all due respect, you simply don’t get it, Michelle. You proved that when you when you ignored your own suggestions for discourse and wrote this. No one cares about how you and Andrew work together. You’re supposed to act professionally. The standard is presupposed, but you’re not exactly up to it if in the same breath you’re making snarky comments about Charles and the editorial process at the CI. This incessant bickering about trivial bullshit is the problem, and by wading into the mud yourself, you just heighten it.
I think an anonymous commentator, closet conservative, puts this point most succinctly:
“i don’t care what’s factually correct or not– all the bickering caused by that fu**ing blog and its author(s) make cmc a worse place”
A little “improper” or “immature,” I suppose, but man does this guy hit the nail on the head. I know you’re not supposed to say I told you so, but this all goes back to my earlier point: Charles may exemplify what is wrong with campus discourse – the existence of this pack of little boys (and girls) who incessantly cry wolf, but there are necessarily two sides to this petty debate.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t discuss politics to win hearts and minds. I’m not running a perpetual one man political campaign. I’m not so arrogant as to think that my political views are some objective right that need– nay, must– be expounded. Rather I talk politics because I find that discussing my and others’ views adds depth and understanding to my own.
Bringing the point back to the CI and the Portside: I’m no psychologist, but maybe what they really need to heal their pointless and insignificant feud is to stop writing, and start hugging. You’ve have to learn to crawl before you can learn to walk.
More posts by Patrick »
Patrick Atwater
Patrick Atwater is a senior at Claremont McKenna College, pursuing a dual degree in Mathematics and Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE). When not playing football or slaving away at the Rose, he spends his time theorizing about the California Dream, which Abhi is foolish enough to pay him for. He enjoys theoretical politics, skiing, Russian literature, genuine people, not swimming back, happiness, the outdoors, Michael Bay movies, trying new things, island paradises, the works of Amartya Sen, traveling, and making gross overgeneralizations.
13 Comments
2009-04-21
16:45:17
Patrick, as a friend to Charles and as an occasional author on the "fucking blog" you approvingly quote as making CMC "a worse place," I feel I should respond.
First, it doesn't seem that your condescending tone is merited by the situation. You say that you do not talk politics to "win hearts and minds." You're above persuading others of your views; instead you hear them out to deepen your own understanding. I have no doubt that your primary interest is in learning, but if you're so averse to persuading others about what you think, why did you even write this piece? It might be more reasonable to say that insofar as you think something is true and good, you take pleasure in trying to show others how it's true and good.
So I don't think you can claim some purity that those of us who have chosen to write for the Claremont Independent or the Claremont Port Side cannot. You seem perfectly happy to stoop down and compare us all to a bunch of children squabbling in the sandbox. Is that the sort of high-minded conversation undertaken for the sole purpose of learning that you are talking about?
The fact of the matter is that many of CMC's smartest and most politically knowledgeable students write or have written for the CI or the CPS. On the left you have Andrew Bluebond, Abhi Nemani (now editor of the Forum!), Nick Warshaw, Charlie Sprague, and Simon Shogry, among others. On the right you have Ilan Wurman, Ian Johnson, Ben Judge, Charles Johnson, Aditya Bindal, and John-Clark Levin, among others. One can learn a great deal by talking to any of these individuals. Sometimes their partisanship obscures their thinking, but more often than not it sharpens their arguments and their depth. Human beings, after all, come to light most clearly in political life, where they cannot escape taking partisan sides on fundamental issues.
On the whole, I think the campus is better of because bright students write and because they are willing to engage in arguments about serious matters. That's why, for instance, I like it when you write for the Forum.
Now sure, perhaps the dispute over Michelle's article on conservatives and Charles's response got out of hand. But that does not mean that both sides did not have legitimate points and concerns. Charles, for instance, I think was correct in calling out the CPS for mischaracterizing the CI Board's position on merging the CC and the CI.
I have no doubt that my friend is occasionally excessive and abrasive. I disagree with how he argues some positions. But I would blame very little on the (sometimes) shallow quality of campus discourse on his presence. In years past we've had buildings bombed and occupied in order to hire more black professors. Just this year I've seen several parades come through the dining halls demanding gay marriage and more illegal immigration. And Charles is the source of all this? He's the bombastic one?
On the whole, I'd say his presence is positive. His blog and his writings have exposed many of the injustices and absurdities that happen on this campus. Recently he helped tremendously in overturning the unfair ban Pomona exercised against two CMC students. Unlike the rude commenter you quote, I'd say we are better off because Charles and is blog are here.
His critics, of course, sometimes have fair points to make, and they're always encouraged to respond. At the same time, I don't think we should ignore the large number of people who treat him in maliciously. Charles may be many things, but malicious he is not. There are those who say he is a racist or who say he champions rape (as the Diatribes blog recently did) or who use sophistic arguments to claim that his his a hypocrite for discontinuing his comments section even though he criticized Ross for singling out his Forum comments for deletion. We should not pretend that they are adding anything legitimate or thoughtful to the debate. My plea to the left is to get over your hatred of Charles and stop blaming him for everything wrong. Instead, put your own house in order by severing ties with his most malicious and immature attackers. Take the high ground where you can.
And so no, Patrick, I do not think that people who outline (and publish) the sort of arguments that I do are senseless crusaders. Like you, I think we are interested in preserving the possibility of genuine education.
2009-04-21
17:32:32
dan write your thesis
2009-04-21
17:53:09
Dan,
Claremont will be a much dimmer place when you leave. Thanks for the kind words. I would point out that I for one find it somewhat revealing how obsessed some of the campus Left is with me personally (including Patrick -- what's this, the second blog post he mentions me?) Every attack on me personally is one that they are unable to fully flesh out in print and it is they, not I, who cheapen the debate. I would also point out that this piece isn't listed as "humor" as it rightly should be, but as "opinion."
But enough of that, with friends like Dan O'Toole, I don't have to be a forceful advocate for myself. Thanks, Dan -- now get to work on your thesis!
2009-04-21
17:54:58
Dan, I appreciate your criticism (I'm a sucker for shout-outs: "On the whole, I think the campus is better of because bright students write and because they are willing to engage in arguments about serious matters. That’s why, for instance, I like it when you write for the Forum."), especially in light of the demands of thesis. I think, though, that several points need to be made in response to your argument.
1) This piece is not politics. It may be about politics, but I am simply fleshing out what we all already agree on: that political discussion should be constructive - not petty. So I am not inconsistent to my statements concerning politics.
2) Notice that a lot of those people you point out no longer work for the CI or Portside (or are involved much less with them).
3) "I have no doubt that my friend is occasionally excessive and abrasive. I disagree with how he argues some positions. But I would blame very little on the (sometimes) shallow quality of campus discourse on his presence. In years past we’ve had buildings bombed and occupied in order to hire more black professors. Just this year I’ve seen several parades come through the dining halls demanding gay marriage and more illegal immigration. And Charles is the source of all this? He’s the bombastic one?" This is the whole point of my earlier article (http://cmcforum.com/opinion/02252009-the-politics-of-outrage). The fact that the opposition is problematically "bombastic" is not a justification. In fact, that logic just exacerbates the situation.
And yes, Charles does have good points. I too would say he's my friend. But that does not speak to the aggregate effect of his blog on campus. So although he has pointed out some "injustices" and "absurdities" on campus, I think that the increased pettiness of campus discourse (such as the squabble started by Michelle's article) is too high a price to pay.
I hope that clarifies and contextualizes the point I'm trying to make.
2009-04-21
18:23:24
Patrick,
I find it very interesting that you say on aggregate that my blog is too high a price to pay. No one asked you to pay for it. On the point of pettiness, are you really trying to argue that I started it? College students are almost axiomatically petty. Claremont Confessions? The ever turning rumor mill on campus? Need I go on?
As for the people you mention on the CI, I'd love to hear your source for those people being "much less involved." Could it be that they are working on their senior thesis?
It seems far more likely that you're taking advantage of some of the campus rumors against me to score some kind of political points for yourself. I don't blame you. If I coveted being liked as much as you, I would write barely original, platitude pieces for the Forum. That's not an attack, more of an observation. You seem unable to put fingers to the keyboard for the Forum without writing about me so I should give you some kind of royalties, no?
Moreover, who are you to say what is "constructive" in dialogue? And why should dialogue be "constructive"? If constructive is getting my ideas out there and having some people really support me -- to the point of offering me jobs, interviews, and dinners at their home -- then I should wager I have been constructive indeed. Some of the students here have never been exposed to any of the arguments I have made and for the few people who I have exposed to new ideas, I would pay just about any social price.
2009-04-21
20:35:15
Please note the difference in style and substance between Dan and Charles.
Dan: You presume that everyone writing for the CI and CPS is here to learn, but some see it as a fight or an opportunity to be seen by everyone. I think it's this kind of pettiness that Patrick is referring to -- which I associate more with the CC and less with the CI and CPS.
I agree with Dan that the CC isn't the worst thing at CMC and that it isn't too high a price. The problem is that Charles , through the CC, tries to embody conservatism on campus. The sandbox bickering is a result of certain individuals trying to equate themselves with a political view. This destroys any distinction between political discourse and playground fights. The CPS' piece on Conservatives at CMC is a perfect example.
2009-04-21
21:50:05
Yes, but at least Charles responds to the correct articles. The response I wrote on Patrick's earlier was meant to be posted here. Here's what I said:
Patrick, thanks for responding. I mean, I guess I obviously disagree that the pettiness is worse than not knowing about many of the things Charles informs us of. Your first point is fair enough. Your piece isn’t about politics, but it is an opinion about how things ought to be around here. So its political only in a certain sense, just like Charles and Michelle’s dispute is political in a certain sense. On the second point, I’d just say that most of the people who are less active are seniors. We still have respect for our publications and help them when we can. But true, we have other priorities, and winning hearts and minds is not top on the list. For instance, I have to finish my thesis, and apparently everyone and their dog is cheering me on!
2009-04-21
22:22:50
So the Port Side writes an erroneous hit piece and I correct them and that's bickering? Okay, just checking.
2009-04-21
23:19:20
this comment thread is proving the point of the article. but whatever i'll add to it a bit.
the poster above, "please note," pretty much sums it up:
"The problem is that Charles , through the CC, tries to embody conservatism on campus. The sandbox bickering is a result of certain individuals trying to equate themselves with a political view."
Charles is unlike most conservatives and Andrew Bluebond is unlike most liberals.
Charles does not speak for all, or even most, conservatives on campus. Bluebond, or the Port Side, does not speak for all liberals on campus.
2009-04-21
23:50:05
I don't know about you guys, but I just gained a whole lot of respect for Dan in these comments.
2009-04-22
01:11:48
I honestly don't have a problem with the bickering. I feel it adds a little bit of entertainment to our otherwise dull lives.
2009-04-22
03:35:43
Charles -- say something scandalous and offensive. This is getting boring. Everyone's agreeing that you're a douche.
2009-04-22
09:28:57
"On the point of pettiness, are you really trying to argue that I started it?" -Charles
I think we just to take this and chew on it for a second...