Challenging a "Culture of Despair"

The following is an email correspondence between a student and the Chair of the Economics Department.  It is in response to an offensive lecture the college hosted without allowing for any critique.  The email and op-ed following the event have gotten numerous people talking on our campus about many significant issues and has demonstrated that we all have the power to make some noise and begin to challenge domineering and “unquestionable” subjects.  While certainly some have disagreed with the methodology and language used in the email, ultimately being firm and honest about grave matters is essential to questioning a serious action.  Focusing merely on timing and language is simply an act of resistance (see Dr. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”).  You all can and should speak up to challenge one another in our community!

________________________________________

Subject: March 17: Talk on early non-marital childbearing

Phil  Levine (Wellesley College)

Early Non-Marital Childbearing and the "Culture of Despair"

Location/Time: Thursday, March 17, 4:30-5:30 Axinn 220

This paper borrows from the tradition of other social sciences in considering the impact that “culture” (broadly defined as the economic and social environment in which the poor live) plays in determining early, non-marital childbearing. Along with others before us, we hypothesize that the despair and hopelessness that poor, young women may face increases the likelihood that they will choose to give birth at an early age outside of marriage. We derive a formal economic model that incorporates the role a woman’s perception of economic success may play in determining her childbearing and marital outcomes. We operationalize this perception mainly by using the level of income inequality that exists in a woman’s state of residence. We empirically investigate whether low socioeconomic status (SES) women are more responsive to differences in the level of income inequality in terms of their childbearing and marital outcomes. We find low SES women have more teen, non-marital births when they live in higher inequality locations, all else equal, supporting our hypothesis. The mechanism driving this finding is less frequent use of abortion. For women in their early 20s, higher inequality reduces the prevalence of shotgun marriages among low SES women, leading to more (fewer) non-marital (marital) births.

________________________________________

Dear Chair Matthews,

I am deeply appalled and tremendously offended that your department has chosen to endorse such a hateful lecture.  "Culture of despair" rhetoric is simply a re-branding of the equally problematic "culture of poverty" that both dehumanizes the poor and blames them for their "condition".  Where are the voices of the women in this study?  They have been simply reduced to a faulty economic model.

We must stand up as a community to blatantly discriminatory lectures that our college endorses.  As human beings striving to be just and fair we cannot tolerate hate.  The college has a history of supporting hateful racism, classism, sexism...and that is wrong.  A few years ago Charles Murray came to campus to speak about his disgusting justification of the superiority of whites in the Bell Curve and we did not bring him here ironically or bring somebody else afterwards to critique his oppressive position.

Thank you very much for reminding me that just because Middlebury offers wonderful classes such as Writing for Social Change and Social Justice in Education that does not actually mean it is committed to those principles.  Believing so would be a terrible mistake to make that would blind us to the horrible injustices this institution is involved in and specifically the oppression that your department perpetuates.

We must actively resist the oppression and it starts with you writing an all-campus apology and clarification.

________________________________________

Thanks for sharing.

The department has not “endorsed … a hateful lecture.”  First, invitations to present seminars on campus aren’t endorsements. Second, it’s not clear to me – and unless you’ve managed to find the time to read Professor Levine’s paper before most of us have, I don’t know how it could be clear to you – that it is in fact “hateful” in the ways you suggest.  (I would suggest, however, that the analogy to Murray’s problematic work isn’t constructive here.)

I’d be pleased to send you the paper, and I would be pleased, perhaps even with a colleague or two, to discuss it with you.  I would further encourage you to attend the lecture and ask questions:  in advertising it to other departments and programs, it was our hope that the resulting conversation would reflect an even more diverse set of ideas and methods than usual.  That’s what the “liberal arts experience” is all about.

I’m afraid, however, that there will be no “all campus apology.”

Best wishes, PHM

________________________________________

Dear Professor Matthews,

I appreciate your offer to sit down together and read Professor Levine's paper; however, I do not appreciate the condescending tone by which you addressed me to distance yourself from this act of injustice you are unfortunately supporting.

Every move you make is political and you can never try to remove yourself from power, pretending to be able to do so is woefully destructive.  Each book you assign to your class, every word you choose to use in lecture, and every penny you use to bring speakers to campus is a reflection and perpetuation of an ideology; there is always an embedded endorsement.

Your misunderstanding as to why this talk is hateful exactly illustrates the problematic position of not reading culture critically and acknowledging how you are situated in power structures.  As one of my friends put it: "This is just a further example of why a more appropriate name for the Econ department is the Economics Department of Oppression and Lack of Understanding."  I am not suggesting that this title is an essential component of Econ on this campus, but rather demanding that you take proactive measures to ensure that it continues to be so applicable no longer.

By no means is this an attack on you or your department; rather, this is firm stance against horrible injustice and the dehumanization of a group you are playing a part in the oppression of.

Unfortunately, your calculation that this event will lead to a more diverse set of ideas is terribly misguided.  Consider the fact that all-gender bathrooms are currently being advocated for (and much over due) on campus.  Under your misunderstanding of diversity it would possibly be harmful to focus the discussion in such a place so that we are dedicated to social justice, we should probably encourage a more diverse set of ideas around the issue, perhaps maybe we should posit something else into the conversation such as creating "White Only" and "Colored Only" bathrooms?  What do you think about that diverse idea?

A liberal arts education is not about being indoctrinated with hate.  As our mission statement reflects the experience is more about cultivating "the intellectual, creative, physical, ethical, and social qualities essential for leadership."  This lecture runs in opposition to such ethical and social qualities and therefore it is your duty to clarify and respond in an all-campus apology.

________________________________________

Dear Professor Matthews,

I respectfully attended the event this afternoon, but unfortunately was not respected back.  I am curious as to why this was, perhaps you along with the administration could address this for me and the rest of our college community.

I am puzzled by how quick you were to defend Levine without having read the paper yourself and to leap to the assumption that I had no grounds for objection since I likely had not read it either.  Through the lecture, however, you now know how unsubstantiated your resistance was.

As you encouraged, I questioned Levine at the lecture.  I explicitly stated numerous questions drawing on verbatim quotes from his speech as well as troubling passages from his paper (that yes I have indeed read).  Unfortunately, I failed to receive an answer.  While I respectfully allowed the event to proceed, we certainly learned much from the silence.  Numerous members of our college community expressed disbelief in the unprofessionalism by which he handled his response; we are all left waiting for this troubling issue to seriously be addressed.

Please know that I want to engage in constructive dialogue with you.  While you invited me to speak with Levine, the offer was revoked upon the opening of my mouth.  While I find this incredibly problematic, I am not going to let it get in the way of us having an important conversation.

I look forward to your response to these urgent concerns and receiving a genuine all-campus apology that ensures such events will not be supported by the Economics Department without critical follow up.