Talia Cutler ’27
Editor-in-Chief
After returning from a year studying at Oxford University, I have found a love for controversy. I knew going into the experience that my perspective would change on a lot of subjects — it was kind of a hackneyed truism, like saying that I was going to “soak up every moment” (I didn’t) or that it was going to “change my life” (still up in the air). Oxford did change my mind a lot, though. I no longer think Manchester United is doomed (despite my former pessimism), and I’ve found that British drill really isn’t half-bad. I am also left with a completely different outlook on education, and a firm belief that the liberal arts education thrives on controversy. More specifically, I came to the conclusion that Trinity College needs to get controversial, fast.
One of the very first things I did was become a member of the Oxford Union. This was not an entirely popular choice. The Oxford Union (or, the “Union” as it is colloquially known at the university) is a two-hundred-something-year-old debating society with a reputation for being connected, conniving and, more disparagingly, a “den of evil.”
This unfavorable image is sustained for a myriad of reasons — one of them being the infamous speakers they invite to debate. Some speakers that I had the (dis)pleasure of meeting while I was at the Union were former Vice President Mike Pence, Gypsy Rose Blanchard, Abby Lee Miller and Kevin Spacey … you can begin to sense a common theme here, I’m sure.
Most people who speak at the Union have been spurned as cultural pariahs, surrounded by contention and scandal. Their presence on campus sparks internal restlessness, anger, outrage and protests from students, often making national news (as was the case with Tommy Robinson). The debates themselves are punctuated with interjections and expletives from the crowded chamber. It is never a subdued affair, it is animated and alive. The volley of interrogative questions and rhetorical points felt intensely educational.
The Union’s philosophy of inviting some of the most despicable, controversial figures in modern culture does not come from a place of malice or even shock value. It was also not about platforming predators, abusers and murderers, although some people certainly feel that way. It is about bringing these people into a space where they can answer for their words, their actions, and their politics, however poorly. Their presence allows for conversation — it forces people to think. It felt like, as their slogan suggested, “the last bastion of free speech.” The Union itself is a deeply(!!!) imperfect institution, but it is an institution that allowed me to examine Trinity College’s values from a distance (of 3,320 miles, to be exact).
I feel that all too often, the idea and the practice of a liberal arts education are at odds with each other. Trinity, as I have pointed out many times before, touts its mission as crafting “bold, independent thinkers.” However, Trinity is uniquely situated as an echo chamber of ideology, with the campus being made up of small, untouching groups of like-minded people from all sides of the political and socioeconomic spectrum.
The I-cut-my-own-hair, ukelele-on-the-quad, quasi-activists can be found orbiting, but never really colliding with the Nantucket-beach-going, ‘My-father-voted-for-Trump-but-only-for-taxes-I-swear’ *wink* prototype. Trinity’s current path allows these groups to operate as parallels, never having to confront or question their differences.
Just as there is inherent harm in certain ideas and ideologies, there is also harm in shutting these ideas out completely, or worse, pretending that they do not exist. There has been a recent trend of Trinity bowing its head to the Trump administration. This is best exemplified in changing the name of the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion to the Office of Community and Belonging following President Trump’s directive for colleges and universities to end DEI programs, and placing limits on student protests and demonstrations, especially surrounding Palestine. This endeavor towards inoffensiveness is, in actuality, paralyzing the core of what a liberal arts school should be about.
Trinity students pay for a liberal arts education, but instead are served a curated, soft environment that no one could possibly describe as ‘bold’ because it assays towards inoffensiveness. However, a “safe” education is really no education at all. Trinity should let controversy speak for itself; let students take offense and be offended. Let people have conversations about subjects that anger them. Taking bold stances and answering for them is what a liberal arts education truly is — or, rather, should be.
This is not to put the onus of this educational failure solely in one area of campus or another — it comes from equal parts students and administration. Because we have an administration that doesn’t like to speak about controversial issues, students are disincentivised from speaking out about said issues. In turn, students do not appear invested enough in cultivating a change in this top-down culture to take action. The Tripod itself receives pushback for its perceived one-sided political coverage, yet it is a rarity that students take the initiative to write something a little more “controversial.” I still am unsure if this is because they won’t, or because they feel they can’t.
I learned more from Mike Pence’s stammering, close-minded, nationalistic mess of a speech at the Union than I had for a semester in a college-level politics class. This is not because I took his words at face value, but because I was made to think about why he believes what he does, the logic that composed his argument and the circumstances that brought him to be greeted by a silent debate chamber. Learning happens in messes, after all.
This is precisely why the Oxford Union feels free to lean into their “evil” image — because at the end of the day, they clearly prioritize discourse over optics. Their “controversies” page on Wikipedia is long and comprehensive, but their reputation is a sign that they are starting a conversation. Trinity, on the other hand, is so afraid of being the villain that it has settled for being a vacuum, trampling expression and stifling its so-called “boldness.”
Perhaps my call to action is simply this: controversy does not have to be whispered about. It can be loud — it can be shouted about fervently. But if your goal with your liberal arts degree is to become a bold independent thinker, you must be bold, be independent and think.