The Interregnum Opening Lecture Was Not Embarrassing

Federal Hall in New York City | Creative Commons Image

The opinions reflected in this OpEd are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of staff, faculty and students of The King's College.

The opening lecture for Spring Interregnum was controversial to say the least. Mr. Kimball’s remarks sparked outrage among many left-leaning students while those on the other side thought otherwise or felt neutral about the situation. The students that felt wronged by what was said called the lecture “offensive” and stooped so low as to call the speaker “gross.”

It is worth conceding that Mr. Kimball’s lecture had little to do with the theme of readiness, only spending around three minutes on it at the beginning before changing the topic to liberalism. While Mr. Kimball could have benefited from refraining somewhat (at least in this context) from his astutely conservative social commentary on higher education and American politics, that is not the main issue at hand. The main issue is how many within the student body failed to civilly comprehend and discuss Kimball’s talk.

This is highlighted by Mattie Townson’s hasty op-ed against Kimball’s lecture and against Kimball himself. In her article, she cites various topics that Kimball harped on and claims his thoughts to be “deeply racist” without properly deconstructing or arguing against them. Name-calling someone’s thoughts in harsh terms without explaining why is not edifying. Let’s actually unpack a couple of the main topics Kimball covered.

While it is clear that Kimball is not in favor of the Black Lives Matter movement, that does not automatically qualify him as racist or anything of the sort. Those who are truly racist openly say things against specific people groups and are often extremists who do not represent decent people. Kimball never claimed he hated particular ethnic groups, nor did he insinuate such. In the case against BLM, those who oppose it simply do not agree with its political aspirations and modes of social “restoration.” That has nothing to do with hating Black people because of their race. 

Kimball also mentioned how those in the BLM movement call themselves “trained Marxists,” which is indeed true. Kimball was not labeling them as Marxist but merely repeating what BLM leaders have labeled themselves. If I am not mistaken, Kimball’s overall point with BLM is that it is part of the current trend of “racialist obsession” within higher education and beyond. 

This is undeniable. Never before have racial and ethnic studies been so popular among scholars until recently. There has also been immense pressure to not only recognize these areas of study but to also assert them to be absolutely necessary and good. 

This is not limited to academia either. Our culture and polity is filled to the brim with “virtue signaling” to tear down and rebuild our “systemically racist” society which those in charge just so happen to make up and control. This is harmful because it focuses on a specific skin color deserving immediate superiority (which is racist) instead of continuing what has worked and what will work: treating people equally. That was fully realized with the Civil Rights Act in 1964. We should uphold this tradition. Tradition isn’t inherently good, but it persists because it typically holds wisdom that has proven itself time and time again.

Multiculturalism is not so new and is a theme that has been brewing for quite some time. America is not new to mass immigration whatsoever, and it is not a bad thing. But it is dangerous when we reject our own identity in favor of trying to encompass all cultures for whatever reason. We can’t possibly pull off an idealistic moral high ground on every front, and even if we could, why would we want to do that? 

Trying to actively include all other cultures will diminish and weaken our own American identity and international strength. To clarify, I am not saying we should discourage them. But America cannot become a neutral ground that everyone can step on while other large nations stand strong on their own. If foreigners want to join America, that’s great, but they should be acclimatizing to us, not us to them. Kimball was arguing that multiculturalism is about “undermining Western liberal values,” which is what happens when a country attempts to embody parts of what it’s not.

Academic liberalism, the main theme of Kimball’s talk, is something that can easily be taken for granted. We should be grateful that we live in a country that values freedom of thought and expression and doesn’t enforce one single ideology upon us all. Kimball made it clear that modern culture should be put to the side in favor of what the past has to offer, which is an important position. Others argue that we need to look at what’s in front of us to truly cover what academic liberalism has to offer, which is also important. But to stop at the observation that Kimball’s positions are not academically liberal is to completely miss the point of his lecture. 

Kimball said, “While academic freedom is a prerequisite for intellectual inquiry, it cannot by itself serve as the end of that inquiry. It’s a necessary but not sufficient value.” 

Academic freedom is not only good but necessary for fruitful and prosperous education. Ideally, we eventually reach the truth of everything. It is a tall order but something we actively work towards. Kimball is searching for the truth just like the rest of us, and he thinks that he holds some truth-oriented beliefs. This does not contradict the idea of academic freedom. Rather, it fits perfectly within academic freedom. 

There is nothing wrong with saying that certain thoughts are unproductive and untrue; by saying just that, Kimball is practicing his own academic freedom. What he isn’t saying is that those other ideas aren’t allowed to be expressed. Saying something shouldn’t happen is quite different from saying that it can’t be allowed to happen. It’s an important distinction that was largely missed in the reception of the lecture.

Mr. Kimball’s lecture was not “embarrassing,” but it must have been delivered improperly, and it was certainly received incorrectly. Ironically, it was students’ immediate reaction to the lecture that was embarrassing. 

Before Great Debate, the final competition of Interregnum, Dr. David Tubbs gave an excellent short speech about what academic freedom means at The King’s College in response to the uproar against the lecture. Despite some students calling on the college to apologize for Kimball’s words, it was comforting to hear an official statement from the college that clarified the purpose of the lecture and did not step away from what was said with its tail between its legs. It was also encouraging to hear nearly the entire student body applaud Tubbs’ remarks.

The King’s College does not neglect the needs of its students. Rather, it quite openly sells a certain academic perspective through its programs, one that could sometimes be seen as favoring a conservative worldview. That being said, I don’t think there ever has been an instance where students have been actively silenced for voicing their opinions in the classroom or in any other academic setting, nor should there be such a case. But if you don’t like what’s being taught to you, then obviously you’re going to have a hard time at King’s.

Isaac White is a freshman at The King’s College and a member of the House of Reagan. He was elected House Scholar for the upcoming 2022-23 academic year.