Palmer's Letter Doesn't Fully Address Kavulla's Criticism

To the editors:

I took Religion 1528, “Globalization and Human Values,” in the spring of last year. I’d like to respond to the letter by Lecturer on the Study of Religion Brian C.W. Palmer ’86 (“Kavulla Might Learn From Class He Criticizes,” March 1). Putting aside the misrepresentation of facts by Travis R. Kavulla ’06in his column (“Brian Palmer’s Academy,” Feb. 24)—the overlapping of courses, grading policies, degree of rigor of the class—I have to say that at the core of his column lay a criticism of the class that I would have to agree with: the course lacks a sense of intellectual vigor in that it lacks a true diversity of thought. Yes, I heard many speakers, all of whom presented different perspectives on different issues. However, the course failed to challenge itself. The viewpoints that were presented—often idealistic, always left-of-center—were never questioned. To have heard a conservative viewpoint in Science Center B last spring would have been about as unexpected as hearing President Bush say he’d love to endorse gay marriage.

I agree that it is important to provide students with examples of successful individual actors who have championed socially conscious causes, but I also feel that it is important to illustrate that often compromises have to be made, and always, such efforts must take place in constant dialogue with more conservative voices. The atmosphere of the class was not conducive to productive debate or discussions of weighty content; rather, it seemed to me, and certainly to my more conservative roommate and fellow student of 1528, as a semester-long serenade to the choir. This is not to say that I did not enjoy the class or that I feel like I walked away at the end of last semester not having gained anything by taking the class. I do mean to convey, however, that the class could have done much more. Handing over the floor to a few true, thoughtful conservative voices during the semester would have made the class infinitely more stimulating and engaging. If Palmer had, we might have actually had something to debate about in my section.

I feel like Palmer’s response to Kavulla represented exactly what was wrong with the course—it answered narrowly those aspects of his editorial that were easily attacked and refuted and skirted the real issue of a lack of intellectual rigor in Palmer’s class. There is no denying that Palmer’s conception of diversity of thought is radically different than that presented by Kavulla in his column and I personally feel like Palmer’s claim that Religion 1528 and Religion 1529, “Personal Choice and Global Transformation,” are intellectually diverse is misguided. I’ll end with one word of caution—Palmer shouldn’t fall into the trap of the radcons and the ultra-conservatives who group everyone on “the left” together and wholly dismiss them. From the content of Palmer’s class and the nature of Palmer’s response to Kavulla’s challenge, it seems he might be on his way.

Teddy E. Chestnut ’06

March 11, 2004