Making a Space for Disparate Voices: Zachary Wood Interview

Trevor Duggins '19 and Isabel Hosafros '19
Thacher students had a conversation with Woods about uncomfortable learning.
On the evening of Sunday, September 16th, Thacher students had the honor of hearing from recent William’s graduate and activist for free speech, Zachary Wood. Wood is most known for his work with the student-led group Uncomfortable Learning, a William’s club dedicated to inviting speakers with controversial and thought provoking views in order to promote dialogue amongst a majority liberal institution. Through his work with the club, he invited Charles Murray, a man who argues in his book The Bell Curve that African Americans have lower IQs than their white counterparts. He also invited John Derbyshire, an open defender of white supremacy, and Suzanne Venker, an anti-feminist author, both of whom were disinvited by the Williams administration. Since graduating in June of 2018, Wood has become an assistant editor and columnist at the Guardian, where he plans to continue to spread the importance of uncomfortable learning throughout the country. Wood is part of a speaker series at Thacher that seeks to introduce students to a diverse array of opinions. We were able to dive deeper into Mr. Wood’s ideas through an interview with him after the speech.

To start off, could you explain what the goals of the student group Uncomfortable Learning are and why you became so involved as a student?
The main goals of the group are, one, to broaden the range of political discourse on campus and, two, to help students build the skills necessary to have difficult conversations and, three, to help prepare students so that they can go out into the world and better seek and effect change. I became involved because I've always really appreciated and been interested in various political social and economic issues. I saw a need for these conversations and noticed that we weren't having them and wanted to try to contribute to it in a positive way.

How did you deal with the criticism that you faced from your community?
For the most part, I tried to talk to people individually, to sit down with people and first really listen to what they had to say and what they found difficult about the work that I was doing.  Then I tried to think and brainstorm with them, together, about ways of making the work more accessible to others.

How did  you specifically address the critique that bringing in speakers like John Derbyshire and Charles Murray gives them a platform?
So, with respect to that criticism, I think that is certainly one of the costs, perhaps the biggest costs involved. I think that whenever you are doing something controversial it is rarely, if ever, the case that there are only benefits. I think that one of the disadvantages is that you are giving a platform to views that are odious, to views that many of us don't really find that we want to hear. It is very difficult to see the value in hearing them, yet I think the benefits outweigh the costs and that if you can have productive intellectual engagement, you get a better sense of how to argue with someone like that, how to debate with someone, how to challenge someone like that, and how to make the wrongness that's apparent in those views more apparent for those who don't know.

Could you talk a little bit about the response from the William’s administration? You have mentioned before that they disinvited some speakers.
Yes. So, they disinvited John Derbyshire and the reasoning behind that was they didn't want protests to be on the cover of the New York Times. And so, I understand the reasoning in that logic, but I also think it was the wrong call to make. I do understand that as a college administrator you are in a different position.

Do you think that colleges should have the power to censor different views?
I think that public universities should adhere to the standards that we have as a country, that is, to protect and uphold the First Amendment. I do believe in the right of private institutions to make judgments based upon what they see as being fit to their institutions, but I would hope that they make a presumption in favor of free speech, and that whenever possible and wherever possible, they try to ensure that there is robust and open discussion.

What's your opinion on safe spaces?
I think it's perfectly okay to have communities of like-minded people. I think that solidarity is important. I think that finding a sense of commonalities, a sense of shared beliefs, and a sense of purpose is very important and can be useful for anyone really. What I am not okay with, and what I think is more detrimental, is when you say that in a space that tends to be like minded, we do not welcome and exclude someone who has a different view or different perspective or someone whose view you find to be problematic. It's not so much the idea of having like-minded people come together that bothers me, as much as when a group of people who are like minded say that someone else is not welcome here.

At a school like Thacher that is so liberal and like-minded, how can we expose ourselves to different viewpoints?
I think that from the classes I saw today, it seems like you guys have a number of great teachers who are really aware of this, so doing more exercises where you are having conversations about how to have difficult conversations and where you, in your readings, are presented with multiple perspectives. For example, not just one take on the Civil War or one take on a particular social movement or one take on a policy like affirmative action, but you're reading arguments for and against, as well as things in the middle.

Did you have any of those moments when you were at Williams where the teachers helped you see the other side?
Absolutely. I would say that about a number of issues in my political science courses. I now have a greater appreciation of just how complex these things are. Really, of how easy it would be for me to hold a very different view, if I had grown up with different conversations around the dinner table, if I grew up in a different community, if I had access to more or less opportunity.  I understand how living a different kind of life could lead me to a very different place.

Why should we listen to viewpoints that we disagree with, especially if both sides know that no one will change their mind?
That’s a great point. If no one's going to walk away with some modification of what they think, then what's the purpose? I think one is that you can build an understanding. Building a greater understanding of these issues and how they impact people's lives -- just a better understanding of other people's stories and experiences can always be useful in thinking about ways of achieving change. Even if all you gain is an understanding --you're not persuaded, the other person isn't persuaded-- with that understanding, I think you are then more empowered to go out and do things in the world.

Could you talk about when you went to speak to a mostly right-wing audience and how that affected you?
I went to the Heritage Foundation Daniel Resource Bank just a few months ago in June and I spoke there.  98% of the people who were there were center-right. They were mostly solid conservatives and I identify as a liberal Democrat, as someone who supports many progressive causes. There wasn't a lot of political commonality that I could find, but I learned a lot. It was tough to really practice what I've been preaching and to go into all of these spaces, the workshops, the different talks, the cocktail reception, and just ask questions. I would think about what questions I wanted to ask, you know, rather than just arguing-- I was not going to persuade a number of those people. So instead, I just said “How did you come to view Healthcare in that way?” “Is there anything the left is saying about health care that you find compelling or worth considering that complicates your perspective on this?” “Why is it that you admire Ronald Reagan and why is it that you admire Bush senior? Are you critical of them in any way?” Questions like that give me a better understanding not just of where they stand in a general sense but specifically with respect to certain policies.

Were most people very open?
They were. And they were shocked by the fact that I was doing that, for one. To their credit, they appreciated the fact that I was there as someone who did not identify with them politically.

Would you have given the same speech that you gave last night, to Thacher students, to a group that you know was more right-leaning?
I would certainly have the same message. I would have the same thesis and perhaps even some of the same examples. Depending upon the audience I'm speaking to, I try my best to convey that I have a sense of what the challenges are for them. So if I was talking to a more right-leaning audience, it tends to be the case, that it is easier, actually, for them to favor and appreciate the idea of uncomfortable learning. Some see it as, in some sense, giving conservatives a voice in spaces where they lack one.

So I’d probably have to do a little more in terms of explaining why this is difficult because it's not going to be so difficult for them when I say “we should have conservatives on campus.” I would have to do more in saying, “This is why it is difficult for minority students. This is why it is difficult for students coming from economically disadvantaged communities. This is why diversity and inclusion matter.” See what I mean? I have to do more work there. Where as here, I got the sense that those were already values that were generally broadly appreciated.

Is there a place that you wish you were able to speak?
Yeah, there are a lot of spaces. Harvard University has a very interesting group, I think it's called the Open Society initiative. It's a great group, I'd love to speak there, actually, and if I could debate with somebody, it would probably be a guy named Ben Shapiro. He is about where I am on the left is where he is on the right. Very smart guy, argues very well, and I take him seriously. I probably disagree with him on 85% of all things, but I take him seriously, and so I’d love it to be in dialogue with him.

I know you talk a lot about the importance of listening. Do you also enjoy debating?
I do, I enjoy debating. And that’s also something I like to say -- sometimes it is very important that you are just able to argue for what it is that you believe. If there comes a point where you’ve got to fight for what you believe in and take a stand -- and I think listening can actually help you do that better. Because then you know, well okay, this view I see as an obstacle that stands in the way of the progress I hope to achieve. And because I spend time listening, now I know how to get around it (the issue).

Do you have any recommendations for us as students, maybe books, speakers, or lectures that we could listen to?
Yes, there are a few books I’d recommend. One is The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt. It is a phenomenal book that explains beyond just the bounds of free speech but also how we as human beings handle moral and political disagreement, how it can divide us, how we can address those issues more thoughtfully more tactfully, and how we can just start talking to each other again. I've learned as much from that book with respect to this subject than I have any other. Another book I'd recommend is The Coddling of the American Mind, which came out recently. This book focuses on, since you guys are in high school soon going to college, what's going on on America's college campuses. What are the challenges? What are the successes? What are the weaknesses? How can we improve upon higher education in this country? Those are two books I recommend.

So, since having graduated, what do you see for your future? How do you see taking what you learned at Williams into your future?
Right now, I’m an assistant editor and columnist at the Guardian. I hope to continue writing about these issues and to continue writing about a number of other issues from inequality, to education, to health care, and to really take what I have learned from these conversations and apply it in my interactions to the world. Ultimately, I hope to pursue a career in public service, so I hope to really apply it there as well.

Okay great. Thank you.
Back

More About Thacher

Interested in learning more about Thacher? Sign up for a virtual visit here.
Notice of nondiscriminatory policy as to students: The Thacher School admits students of any race, color, national, and ethnic origin to all the rights, privileges, programs, and activities generally accorded or made available to students at the School. It does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national, and ethnic origin in administration of its educational policies, admission policies, scholarship and loan programs, and athletic and other School-administered programs.