Middlebury College was once known as a prestigious liberal arts institution with excellent programs in the languages and environmental sciences. Its students and graduates were recognized as being bright, hard-working, and deeply loyal to their school. However, in recent years, Middlebury has successfully destroyed its once great reputation. Between the violent protest over a speech given by Charles Murray that resulted in a professor being sent to the hospital, and the recent cancellation of a speech by Polish philosopher Ryszard Legutko, Middlebury has become known as a hotbed of illiberal intolerance and far-left brainwashing.



In my short time here as a student, it has become clear to me that some members of the student body and the administration have become ideologically possessed by what Dr. Gad Saad refers to as the “DIE religion,” which stands for Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity. These ideologues operate under the influence of Postmodern theory, which was created by French philosophers in the late 20th century.



Postmodernists reject reason, science, and absolute truth, and instead view Western Culture as a social construct created to serve the so called “dominant” class, which has been identified as heterosexual white men. They seek to destroy individuality, and instead believe each person is a representative of their race, gender, or sexuality. Each group then competes in a constant power struggle of the “marginalized” against the “oppressors,” hence creating the term “white privilege.”



Due to this ideological cancer infiltrating campus, one thing has become clear. Victimhood is treated as a form of currency, while infantile protests and constant complaining are the way to cash in. Signs, chants, and group protests have replaced ideological discussion and civil conversation. A very vocal minority of students have monopolized campus dialogue. This has alienated many students from across the political spectrum, and has forced dissenters, including professors, into silence out of fear of backlash for speaking out. Clearly, this sort of environment undermines the mission of a liberal arts education.



In the 1960s, liberals at Berkeley College protested the lack of diverse political opinions in campus dialogue In 2019, leftists protest so that they are protected from “harmful” opinions. And in the same way Alex Jones convinces himself that everything is part of a globalist conspiracy, these radical leftists make everything out to be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc in order to justify their censorship and, at times, physical violence.



In no place are these totalitarian tendencies better displayed than in the SGA’s “Thirteen Proposals for Community Healing,” which is nothing short of an attempt at a power grab by students against the faculty. Proposal three includes a requirement that organizations and departments must fill out a “due diligence” form to the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (or the DIE office, as I like to call it). In this form, a list of questions must be filled out to determine if the speaker’s views “align with Middlebury’s community standards.” The ultimate goal of said form is to “remove the burden of researching speakers from the student body.



My worry regarding the SGA’s proposal is that it will utilize Middlebury’s incredibly vague community standards to justify censorship in order to cater to the subjective feelings of perpetually offended students. Instead, I feel as a community we should turn to section A.5 of the handbook, which states:

Middlebury is a community of learners and as such recognizes and affirms that free intellectual inquiry, debate, and constructive dialogue are vital to Middlebury’s academic mission and must be protected even when the views expressed are unpopular or controversial. Moreover, as the College Faculty Handbook and the Institute’s Policies & Standards Manual (PSM) statements recognize, an institution of higher education’s service of the common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition.’

Based upon these standards, I see no legitimate reason to determine “whether a speaker’s beliefs align with Middlebury’s community standards.” Students should be free to invite any speaker in order to challenge previous conceptions and expose themselves to different ways of navigating the world.



Free expression not only protects individual rights to hold controversial opinions, it defends individual rights to listen to other opinions as well. It is only through free inquiry that we can uncover the depths of our ignorance and access knowledge. Without it, we remain blind to the diversity of human opinion in favor of an artificial orthodoxy where only certain speech is permitted. As far as “removing the burden of researching speakers from the student body” goes, I find that statement to be intellectually lazy and absolutely disrespectful to the individuals who have made Middlebury what is today.



The school has made its commitment to education clear through its rigorous academic curriculum and robust offering of resources to its students. Many faculty members and alumni have worked tirelessly since the founding of the college to hold the school to a very high standard. Due to these efforts, it is currently a top 5 liberal arts college that boasts a 1.1 billion dollar endowment and the ability to select its students from the worlds brightest. I find it appalling that any grown adult who attends this institution views learning about the various opinions individuals hold to be a “burden,” and I find it absurd that any faculty member would support such a position.



How can Middlebury expect to uphold its mission of “preparing students to lead engaged, consequential, and creative lives, contribute to their communities, and address the world’s most challenging problems” if its students are incapable of hearing an opposing viewpoint without having a meltdown or claiming to be harmed? Is wrapping students in bubble wrap and sheltering them from the real world actually doing them a service, or is it instead crippling them due to the low expectations that have been imposed upon them?



Even more disturbing is the demand for mandatory “bias training,” which students and faculty will be forced to attend at the beginning of each school year. In a true demonstration of authoritarianism, “the names of any faculty, staff, or administration members who do not participate in bias training should be publicly available to students so that they can make informed decisions on courses and interactions,” which is basically an alternate way of stating “accept our viewpoints or prepare to be publicly shamed and exiled.”



I find it repulsive to suggest that all members of the Middlebury community should be forced to attend these radical left brainwashing events, and even more repulsive to publicly share the names of the reasonable and brave faculty members who would refuse such an absurd demand. While I am not opposed to voluntary bias training where far-left faculty and students could attend on their own will, I believe any act that forces a particular ideology on others to be a demonstration of intellectual facism. This ridiculous demand is yet another attack by the radical leftists against the rights of individuals to hold their own beliefs.



It may be very possible that I am not woke enough, but I feel that as a community we can better address issues through civil dialogue rather than events which force one particular viewpoint on others, especially at a liberal arts institution in the United States of America. We can have difficult conversations while respecting each individuals right to express and hold their own opinions, and, more importantly, realize that someone having a different opinion from others does not in any way marginalize or harm anyone, but rather creates an environment where discussion and understanding can arise.



Despite the many issues I see around the politicized campus culture here at Middlebury, I still have hope that the community can begin to turn itself back into an institution that values knowledge and intellectual discussion rather than dogma and leftist re-education. Personally, I view the University of Chicago as the epitome of academic excellence, as they have not only attracted some of the finest students and professors in the world, but have also laid down standards regarding free inquiry in what are known as the “Chicago Principles.” Currently, over 55 colleges and universities including Princeton, Columbia, Georgetown, and UNC Chapel Hill have all adopted the statement.



I believe a solid first step for Middlebury would be to adopt these principles. Doing so would show an administrative effort to do away with safe spaces and instead foster well intentioned debate and non-partisan education. However, simply adopting the principles is not enough. Middlebury needs to show that it will not only allow controversial speakers to come to campus, but will also keep the mob at bay. President Patton must take a firm stance against backlash from students and faculty members, and continually reaffirm the school’s commitment to free inquiry if Middlebury is to save itself from itself.



Dominic Aiello ‘22.5 is co-President of the College Republicans.

