(Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
Editor’s Note: This piece was originally submitted to The Daily Princetonian for publication on January 10, 2021. After significant delays in the editorial process, it was withdrawn from consideration by the author and published in The Princeton Tory.
In an opinion piece published on January 6, 2021, Terrell Seabrooks, former Vice President of the American Whig-Cliosophic Society, questioned my account of constraints on intellectual diversity within the Society. He claims to present “verifiable facts.” So, let us verify, point by point.
**********
Point #1: If one were to believe Hoffman in his article for the National Review, one might believe that hidden in the depths of Whig Hall was some insidious group of politically-left elitists plotting to suppress the voices of the right at Princeton University. Well, Adam, I am happy to report that if ever a plot existed, it failed miserably.
This year, Whig Clio hosted 43 events — a testament to the hard work and dedication of the entire Governing Council. Of those events, five were non-partisan, 17 were bipartisan, six were left-leaning, and 15 were right-leaning. We also hosted 10 speaker events. Of the 10, one was non-partisan, three were left-leaning, and six were right-leaning.
Seabrooks makes two claims: a) Whig-Clio hosted 15 right-leaning events and b) because Whig-Clio hosted 15 right-leaning events, it cannot be accused of suppressing conservative voices. Both are untrue. To understand why, we must examine the details.
In his count of 15, Seabrooks includes events not hosted/organized by Whig-Clio and apolitical/nonpartisan events, rather than events pertaining to conservative thought. Three of his listed events were organized by chapters of national nonpartisan groups. Even if we grant that these events each featured conservative speakers—an assertion that I and some of the speakers themselves would dispute—his claim still does not stand. These three the “conservative” events were merely co-hosted by Whig-Clio, meaning that they did not follow the same protocol as events organized by Whig-Clio itself. In co-hosting the events, Whig-Clio played no significant organizational role in selecting the speakers. Seabrooks also includes apolitical events in his calculation. Why does he consider a “Clio Social Night” conservative? Schmoozing over chips and drinks cannot be fairly qualified as “conservative.” Furthermore, eight of Seabrooks’s 15 events were part of the Article Discussion Series. These spanned topics from “Grading Policy in the Age of Zoom” to opinion pieces by progressive columnists in the New York Times. While I (a conservative) chose the article of interest and organized the Zoom events, by no means were they “conservative” events. Discussions featured lively debates between conservatives and progressives. Perhaps Seabrooks can be forgiven for considering these events conservative because, according to our own record keeping, he did not attend even one article discussion event.
The final three events—featuring congressional candidate Mark Razzoli, journalist Josh Hammer, and Senator Ted Cruz—that Seabrooks included in his conservative list deserve context. Mark Razzoli is a Democrat-turned-Republican running in Princeton’s congressional district and has no extensive public record. The Governing Council rightly decided that the “R” next to Razzoli’s name did not disqualify him from receiving an invitation. Josh Hammer is a right-leaning opinion editor at Newsweek magazine and has committed much of his recent writing to legal scholarship; Hammer was apparently kosher enough to get through the Governing Council. Senator Ted Cruz, who is certainly a prominent and controversial conservative, was our final speaker of the year, and his invitation came under unusual circumstances. Given that Senator Cruz, a member of the Class of 1992 and former Clio chair himself, personally extended an unsolicited offer to speak to Whig-Clio (I happened to bump into him at a mall in Houston), I suspect even the Governing Council realized that opposition to him would have presented a public relations nightmare.
Seabrooks’s claim that Whig-Clio hosted 15 right-leaning events is, therefore, false. It hosted only three distinctly conservative events
Regarding Seabrooks’s second assertion, that because Whig-Clio hosted right-leaning events, it cannot be accused of suppression of conservative voices, we must again consider Whig-Clio’s actions. While Clio was permitted to host three conservative events, each had to meet the ultra-progressive standards of the Society. When conservative speakers did not conform to their conditions, such as George Will *68 and Neomi Rao, they were rejected. The Governing Council’s permission to invite some conservative speakers is irrelevant to the fact that they denied Will and Rao the same opportunity. Conservative voices were being suppressed.
Point #2: Regarding George Will, meeting minutes indicate that the Governing Council voted to temporarily place the speaker’s approval on hold until Hoffman presented more details on the type of event he was proposing. As broadly discussed during the meeting, the basis of the request for a more detailed plan was not due to intolerance, but rather because of concerns that protests might disrupt the event, as was the case when Will spoke at Princeton’s 2019 baccalaureate ceremony, less than seven months prior. Moreover, as a part of the discussion around a possible invitation to Will, members offered suggestions that included hosting a private dinner or hosting a panel. The common theme of the discussions was to encourage organized disagreement rather than chaos and protests. Since early February 2020 (when the discussion and vote took place), this additional information still has not been provided by Hoffman.
Seabrooks challenges my report of how George Will was blocked from receiving an invitation. He claims that Will was rejected only because the Governing Council sought more information on how to organize dissent to his presentation—and that this is supported by the minutes of the meeting. In fact, Seabrooks mischaracterizes the conversation and cherry-picks from the Governing Council’s debate—and I can prove it with meeting minutes.
The “common theme of the discussions” was not to “encourage organized disagreement.” Comments—I quote from the minutes—included the suggestions of “bring[ing] other speakers without such inflammatory remarks.” The minutes also reveal that Seabrooks himself considered inviting Will to “reflect[] badly on all of us,” hardly an attempt to garner more information about his speech. These comments reflect an intolerance of Will’s politics. Later in the conversation, it was Seabrooks who suggested reconsidering Will at a future time. The reason? As specified in the minutes, he sought “to put it [the vote] off for two weeks until a specific plan can be formed, i.e. a specific topic that he can talk about.” Clearly, Seabrooks did not suggest rejecting Will to give more time to plan for “organized disagreement.” His comment was also more than a nondescript delay in order to settle on a topic (a condition demanded for no other speaker); it was a suggestion to constrain Will’s speech. Seabrooks argued for only permitting me to invite Will on condition that Will be reigned in from sharing any provocative ideas and keep to a specified unobjectionable subject—a far cry from organizing dissent. I felt at the meeting and still feel that this is a violation of free expression. Will ought to be allowed to argue for his ideas, even if they are unfashionable on our campus. To regulate Will’s conservative thought, as Seabrooks suggested we do, is a form of suppression of conservative speech. Will was not “temporarily” blocked “until Hoffman presented more details on the type of event he was proposing.” Will was blocked until Hoffman would agree to regulate his speech. As I expressed, I could not bring myself to violate my conscience and do so. The simple fact is that we voted on whether to allow Will to speak freely at Princeton, and Will was rejected.
Point #3: Regarding Judge Neomi Rao, although the motion to invite the speaker did not receive the required number of votes to pass, this was not because she was opposed (in fact, only one member was opposed to her speaker). The majority of the Governing Council abstained after requesting additional information. Once again, since January 2020, Hoffman never followed up.
It seems that Seabrooks does not contest that the opposition to Rao was based on her controversial writing on hot-topic political issues during her college years. In fact, at the meeting, it was Seabrooks who raised the initial resistance to her, as is documented in the minutes. His claim that she was rejected “after requesting additional information” is flatly untrue. I have confirmed my recollection that Rao was opposed based on her political writing with others, both affiliated and not affiliated with Clio, present at the meeting. But this is more than our words against his: the meeting notes have no mention of a request for additional information. Surely, if that was the basis of the abstentions, then it would have been noted. The minutes show that the vote to reject her took place after expressed resistance to “comments that Neomi Rao has made in the past.” Furthermore, what “additional information” could the Governing Council have sought from me? How much “additional information” is sufficient for a federal judge to be given the green light to speak at a political organization? Would Rao have been permitted if certain controversial views of hers were outweighed by other, more fashionable stances? Again, Seabrooks’s report of what happened is false.
Point #4: Hoffman further claims that none of the “left-leaning” party’s speakers were questioned. This is frankly untrue
This assertion can easily be refuted by reviewing the minutes and agendas. Not a single “left-leaning” party’s speaker was brought for further review before the Governing Council, as was done for my speakers. It is Seabrooks’s statement that is frankly (and verifiably) untrue.
Point #5: It is also important to note that the Whig Party Chair submitted a fraction (one-sixth) of the number of speakers proposed by Hoffman, recognizing that her primary responsibility was to foster a sense of community rather than “invite speakers,” which is quite different from Hoffman’s self-ascribed role. In fact, Whig-Clio’s constitution clearly explains that “The Director of Program shall be responsible for the administration of the Society’s Speaker Seminar…,” as noted in subsection C.5. of Section VII, titled “Executive Officers”. Nowhere in Hoffman’s job description was it written or inferred that he was responsible for inviting speakers. That said, the president and vice-president heartily encouraged coordination among Whig and Clio party chairs and the Director of Program to identify potential speakers for special occasions.
Seabrooks asserts that I stepped beyond my role as Clio Party Chair in inviting speakers. I disagree. As the Whig-Clio constitution states, I am responsible for organizing “events” for Clio. I did not invent the idea of speaker events; Clio has hosted speakers since well before I even joined the group. I note also that I felt compelled to invite conservative speakers because the Speaker’s Council did not organize even a single conservative event; I had to invite all of the conservative speakers. If Whig-Clio were as egalitarian as Seabrooks claims, then the Speaker’s Council, responsible for Whig-Clio’s speaker lineup, would have proposed and approved some conservatives. They did not go through with a single one. While not an explicit suppression of conservative speech, this does demonstrate a clear an anti-conservative bias.
Lastly, Seabrooks criticizes me for not treating community building as my “primary responsibility.” But in fact I have: Clio held more community building events than Whig and our membership grew by a significantly larger margin than our left-leaning counterpart. Our community building has been a shining success—all the more so since we represent a minority view on campus.
**********
In all, I was dismayed to read Seabrooks’s piece. I have had largely positive interactions with him, so it was not pleasant to read him wage personal attacks against me and hit me with lies. Needless to say, I did not have control over the exact date of my article’s publication and had no way of knowing that it would appear on the same day as his grandmother’s COVID-19 vaccination. I am also baffled why Seabrooks went after me for a minor terminological misstatement of no consequence to anyone—my mistaken terming of the “Cliosophic Party” as the “Cliosophic Society,” which Seabrooks called an “intentional and gross misrepresentation of facts,” in addition to being “shameful” and “dangerous”—and for the polite thank-you I gave him at the conclusion of his term. I did not appreciate his taunts against me for losing a student club election and his questioning of my intentions. While I was hurt by his words, I am proud of my work at Whig-Clio and I stand by the truthfulness of my article, which I wrote in good faith. It is a sad day when Princeton’s premier debate society silences legitimate points of view.
It transpires that the University does not consider the Whig-Clio Fellowship award information to be confidential, and so this piece has been edited to reflect that Seabrooks did not disclose confidential information about the author
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.