‘Illegitimate’: Professor denounces college’s PC decision to expel student

Published December 16, 2015 8:16pm ET



The suspension of student Thaddeus Pryor from Colorado College, and the expulsion of his friend, Lou Henriques, over Yik Yak comments, has caught nationwide attention. David Hendrickson, professor of Political Science, not only criticized the punishment, but regarded it as “illegitimate.”

The College Fix, which has covered the situation, pointed to an interview with Hendrickson from Cipher, the student-run magazine.

Hendrickson emphasized he is seeking all the facts in the case. But, from what he has ascertained so far, he’s not thrilled with it. He said the students’ “banishment… was procedurally unfair and grossly disproportionate to the offense.” Hendrickson is not merely concerned for the students, but the school as well:

I think the punishments, unless overturned, will damage the school’s relationship with all its primary stakeholders, while hurting the cause of higher education more generally. By making the school an object of ridicule, these decisions do a serious injury to Colorado College, all the more grievous in being self-inflicted. I believe that the administration’s actions are opposed by a large majority of the student body, irrespective of race, religion, sexual orientation, or political creed. I support the petition calling on the administration to reconsider its course, available here.

Hendrickson went on to sharply criticize the school, pointing out that the students “turned themselves in and offered profuse apologies.” He offered that “the administration’s conduct teaches the lesson that cooperation with the dean’s office is imprudent and that dishonesty may, after all, be the best policy.”

This is especially the case when other posts “involved a wide range of ethnic slurs, initially regarding whites, but descending to just about everybody on the planet—some apparently offered as jests, others just plain spiteful and mean.” Hendrickson suggested that:

To throw out the two people who actually owned up to what they did and who expressed remorse and made apology, while giving a pass to all the other participants and effectively encouraging their silence, is capricious and a form of scapegoating.

It is later pointed out in Hendrickson’s response that:

These slurs and others like them, applied to various and sundry ethnic groups, ought to have been mentioned in the school-wide assembly at the beginning of block four. If we are to have a restrictive rule regarding this, it must be applied impartially. If we are to have a conversation about it, we need to know the whole truth.

Hendrickson does not merely wish to know all the facts of the case, and supports the petition, but also invited “students to write to me with their accounts” as “the the context is vital in understanding the justice of the punishments administered to the two students.”

Making the punishments even worse, Hendrickson noted, is that they are “as severe as the school can offer and are more draconian than other cases that, on the face of it, are much more serious, involving sexual assault or broken jaws.”

Hendrickson does give credit to the school where it is due, as they modified the punishments. He believes it “seems to reflect recognition that the administration’s initial reaction was over the top,” though notes the school authorities “need to move further in the right direction.”

The College Fix found this except particularly fitting:

The punishments have left entirely unclear the boundaries of acceptable speech. A lot of students feel that they are walking on egg shells. The administration, pleading confidentiality and federal privacy laws, has made no attempt to clarify the question. Those confidentiality provisions, it must be emphasized, exist to protect the student, not the administration, and do not forbid the administration from addressing the larger question of principle. The pertinent facts are also publicly known, or soon will be, so should not be a bar to administration comment. All the classic writers on politics say that edicts given without explanation are a certain sign of despotism. Power that gives no account of its actions, that holds itself unaccountable to reasonable explanation, is illegitimate. And yet the administration’s response did not answer several pertinent objections in Mr. Pryor’s appeal. It must do so, or retreat.

Hendrickson makes another point, one which is not so obvious, but nevertheless important. He notes how when the school admits students, “we take on an obligation to care for them—to treat them as an end, and not as a means.” Thus, the school failed on such a front as well.

Much has been made of Thaddeus Pryor’s comments, who said about black women that “They matter, they’re just not hot.” Lou Henriques received the worser punishment, and for making a South Park reference. His comment of “Race War. Race War. Race War.” was based off of the episode, “With Apologies to Jesse Jackson.” Hendrickson concedes it was not an appropriate comment, but it did not deserve expulsion:

Undoubtedly it was a gross misjudgment for Lou to post a meme from the show that intimated the worst slur out there, for which he has offered a profuse apology, but the cultural referent to South Park, alas, was very apt. It was not an expellable offense.

N1D4Xz-3YE4

The rest of the interview continues to be a lengthy one, but is nevertheless worth reading for Hendrickson’s points on freedom of speech and expression on campus.