King’s Students and Faculty Reflect on Kimball’s Opening Interregnum Lecture

Left to right: Dr. David Tubbs, Dr. Anthony Bradley and Dr. Joshua Kinlaw. Image by Paige Hagy.

Dr. Joshua Kinlaw, Program Chair of the Media, Culture and the Arts and Assistant Professor of History and Humanities, and Dr. Anthony Bradley, Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Center for the Study of Human Flourishing, spoke on a panel about Roger Kimball’s widely-discussed Interregnum Opening Lecture at an event hosted by The King’s Council on Thursday, April 7. 

The panel urged the audience to consider the purpose of a liberal arts education and to reflect on how that education has taught them to respond to arguments they find disagreeable or reprehensible. Simultaneously, the panel conceded the weaknesses of Kimball’s lecture. A few of the criticisms were directed at Kimball for not sufficiently defining terms, overstating some points, lacking focus on the theme of readiness and perhaps assuming too much about his audience. 

Dr. David Tubbs, Associate Professor of Politics, moderated the discussion. He began by outlining the goals of the event and explaining the non-attribution policy established by the Council.

Student Body President Brent Buterbaugh explained that the policy’s aim was “to provide an environment in which panelists and students asking questions will feel comfortable sharing their thoughts,” and that any quotes must be obtained with “direct consent from the person it will be attributed to.” 

Dr. Tubbs asked the panelists a few questions before opening the floor for questions from the audience. 

One question regarded Kimball’s view on a contemporary prejudice, specifically “the view that the present moment is the summit of wisdom and enlightenment.” Tubbs then asked, “Does a liberal arts education require us to confront what Mr. Kimball has described as this very widespread prejudice today about where we are in the chronology of human history?”

Dr. Kinlaw responded, “My short answer is yes. The phrase, also called the tyranny of the present, is something that each one of us is susceptible to. In fact, it's probably easier to live from that vantage point than it is from a more historically informed vantage point. Cicero's version of this that most of you have heard is that ‘to remain ignorant of history is to remain your whole life a child.’ I think there's something to that.” 

Kinlaw also emphasized the aim of liberal learning, which is to provide “a synoptic view to see interrelations, whether it’s branches of knowledge or periods of history.”

Dr. Bradley agreed, adding, “History has this wonderful, wonderful advantage of helping us interrogate and test the present...We want to be people that take present ideas, concepts, conclusions and do surgery on them.”

Later in the panel when a similar topic was raised by an audience member, Dr. Bradley referenced David Koyzis’ book Political Vision and Illusions. Bradley summarized Koyzis’ four questions to ask when analyzing ideologies such as Kimball’s: “​​Identify something that's good. Secondly, what does it say that's evil, right? Thirdly, what does it say is going to save us from that evil. And then lastly, what are some of the internal weaknesses of that ideology that make it impossible to deliver on its promises?”

When Dr. Tubbs opened the floor for audience questions, the room sat in silence until Dr. Bradley joked, “Imagine this is the comment section of the EST article,” causing the room to erupt in laughter.

One question came from Buterbaugh, who said, “I think that one of the things that I took away was sort of this sense from him that he took issue with the modern conception of multiculturalism and feeling like it gave so much deference of every viewpoint, like the modern conception of diversity, to the point where you weren't able to make a substantive critique of any culture.” 

Buterbaugh continued to ask the panelists to interact with Kimball’s notion — that one of the aims of the liberal arts is to identify and wrestle with society’s best ideas — in the context of multiculturalism and diversity. 

Another question came from Zoe Whitford, a junior in the majoring in Media, Culture and the Arts, who asked, “There were lots of buzzwords or terms that were used in Kimball’s lecture such as ‘Afrocentrism’ and I believe one was ‘Islamofascism.’ When we're engaging with such material or such language that is so incredibly polarizing, how do you encourage that we operate with Christian charity, not only engaging with the lecture in our own minds, giving him the benefit of the doubt, but also with our peers who might find language such as that as particularly individually threatening?”

To another question, Dr. Kinlaw urged the audience to “be better than the comment box.” Kinlaw continued, “One of [John Henry Newman’s] most significant sections of his idea of the university is a section on gentility...We don't really use that word, but the classical sense, there is magnanimity: being big-hearted or great-souled. We all want to nod our heads at that, but very few of us do it. Try to think about what that means.”

With over 50 students and faculty in attendance, students mostly had similar thoughts on the panel and what it accomplished.

Brennan Kitson-Jones, a junior majoring in Finance, said, “I think the panel did a great job of addressing the content of Mr. Kimball’s lecture in a manner that provided grace and understanding for both the speaker and the students who may have found his content objectionable. I believe the panelists were able to dissect some of the more complex aspects of Mr. Kimball’s lecture, and not only answer questions students had, but also encourage further examination of our own beliefs and presuppositions.”

“I think as far as encouraging discussion among the professors and students, this event accomplished what I hoped,” Anne Short, a freshman majoring in PPE, reflected. “On the other hand, I personally think that the panel danced around a couple of the last questions. King’s has a very diverse student body and therefore a lot of different opinions on the Interregnum lecture. I think this prompted the panel to be cautious in their responses so as to not further offend anyone.”