The Arrogance of Certainty

On campus and in the pages of this newspaper, countless voices lament the absence of a true campus community and the lack of constructive dialogue among students at this University. No one seems to be able to explain why this is so. If the events of the past two weeks have shown us anything, then they have shown us the flaw in our community. That flaw is the arrogance of certainty.

The hunger strike that ended just a few days ago provides a perfect case study for this phenomenon in action. This piece is not about the hunger strikers’ demands—it’s about their tactics and how those tactics are antithetical to infusing this community with a little humility. Collectively, we need to develop the ability to extricate ourselves from entrenched opinions, however briefly, in order to let our minds fit new molds—to view issues from a completely new perspective. Unfortunately, the strikers did not do this. At the very moment that they were imploring campus to engage critically with their cause, they were also hijacking the debate, shutting out the voice of the opposition, and causing a major regression in the greater dialogue on campus.

As the strike dominated campus consciousness for 10 days, the strikers broadcast their message, garnering support. One central argument effectively said, “We spent a long time following the bureaucratic process, but because that failed to work quickly enough, we were compelled to resort to this strike.”

Think about this carefully. The hunger strike came about because activists felt that standard protocol was not moving quickly enough. While all students follow traditional channels in petitioning this sluggish behemoth of a University, the hunger strikers felt entitled to ignore procedure and force the University’s hand. From where does such urgency come? Could it be that these students felt entitled because they were utterly convinced of the truth and essential goodness of their mission? If we study their actions and words, this is exactly the conclusion at which we arrive. One strike advocate wrote, “As a reminder, no one resorts to depriving themselves of food for trivial requests.” May I then ask—who is the judge of a “trivial request”?

This is the arrogance of certainty. The advocate’s statement is not inaccurate—however, the supposition of the statement is that because these people are striking, and no one fasts trivially, then the strikers’ cause must be noble. This logic is a devilishly clever sleight-of-hand. Certainly the strike is absolutely correct in the strikers’ own minds. And therein lies the problem.

One strike advocate dismissed the possibility that the “silent majority” legitimately opposed the strike, and wrote that the “silent majority” was absent from discussions about change with regard to marginalization on campu, saying, “If you deemed those issues unimportant, if you chose to remain silent and inactive ... no one has to ‘hijack’ your voice.” Again, this assumption is telling. Because students did not speak out about marginalization, they must have been inactive. Implicit is the assumption that marginalization is not being dealt with aggressively enough—and therefore, people who care about this issue must obviously be speaking out. Is it possible that some concerned students appreciate the measured and slow-moving process of Columbia’s administration? Absolutely—but not if you ask the strikers.

The words of strike advocates beg other questions. Why does rejecting a method of advocacy cause someone to lose his or her voice? Furthermore, how could the strikers possibly know that the majority did not consider their ideas? The answer is simply that they couldn’t. But buried within the strikers’ argument against the “silent majority” is an artful tautology. Precisely because the “silent majority” came out against the strike, the majority must not have considered the proposition fully! Arrogance has made them believe that serious consideration of their ideas will automatically convert unbelievers.

Ironically, the demands of these radical activists are decidedly unradical. Revamp Major Cultures to give it some internal coherence? Sounds reasonable to me. Bolster Ethnic Studies? I’m not going to major in it, but other people should certainly have the opportunity. Ethical expansion into Manhattanville? Hell, yes—we owe the thousands of residents set to be removed from their homes at least that much.

But a basic principle of respect for the members of this community dictates that we must not hold the University hostage in advocating for what we want. Disappointingly, this is exactly what the hunger strike did. When you believe without a shadow of a doubt that you are correct, why would the reservations of others give you pause?

A Spec column which ran the day after the strike began called the strike democracy. Belief that the strike was the essence of democracy was not an isolated opinion—it seemed to be a common feeling among strike supporters. I find this sentiment deeply troubling. I was unaware that democracy provided the loud voices of the few with the ability to marginalize the less-vocal many. I can think of no better way to epitomize the fractured state of campus dialogue than in this warped conception of campus democracy.

To my mind, it was the Engineering Student Council that emerged as the hero of last week. The council intuitively understood the need for a measured approach and humility in the activist process. ESC said it could not “support institutional change based upon intimidation” and that the strikers “have taken our community hostage” instead of “working with their fellow students.” It would be difficult to characterize the strike better than this. But we need to keep in mind the greater symbolism of what the hunger strike represents. It marks the nadir of respect for the opposition, the absolute low point for modesty in the proposal of ideas.

To borrow the title of a book by the late, great David Halberstam, it is no stretch to say that many of the students at this University really are among “the best and the brightest.” But if the debate the strike has catalyzed teaches us anything, it should be that the more we learn, the more we realize we don’t know anything at all. It is only with this attitude that we can repair our intellectual community and forge relationships that will actually bring us closer to bettering the University in which we all have a tremendous stake.