Well, it happened again. I 'got' people upset with me. Whenever I'm at the Symposium I walk a line between my enthusiasm for good debate/discussion/ argument and being a nice guy who doesn't want to offend anyone. Of course, its not simply that I want to be nice, I, like TJ, also don't want to be criticized or disliked. Yet, I have strong feelings about many subjects that to others may be of merely intellectual or philosophical interest. In no area of my life is this more true then when it comes to 'my Jefferson'. I'm passionate about who he was, the legacy he has left us, and what we can, but generally don't, learn from him. In addition, when I get to talk about TJ I get to express and explore my thoughts for the book, so how those thoughts are received takes on added importance.
Peter Onuf shares my passionate nature, although not necessarily as regards the personal Jefferson. But Peter is certainly passionate about ideas and their impact. I consider Peter to be a casual friend and a mostly indirect mentor, i.e., I learn from his writings, listening to him at the Symposiums, and only rarely getting direct guidance through email or conversation. At any rate, the initial controversy began when Peter and I argued during a session about TJ, race, and slavery. I recognize that my opinions may not have been well understood given the time I had to speak, and that they went against the mainstream, but it was fun to challenge and be challenged by someone of Peter's status. Although we both raised our voices, we were never angry. When the session ended Peter thanked me for the exchange, thinking it had been both provocative and educational and good for the group to hear. One of the faculty actually publicly agreed with my positions, and a UVa professor who had stopped in acknowledged my ability to stand up to Peter with good arguments. Needless to say, I felt great, since a major reason I attend the Symposium is to test myself and my ability to express my ideas so they are understood. (Being understood, rather than being agreed with, is a core issue for me in all areas of my life.) Peter understands that, I think, and although he often ends arguments with "Spatz, you're wrong ", I know he respects my views.
I heard from some of the students that they enjoyed the exchange. But I soon discovered that some of the women thought we might come to blows! Hardly likely, we were having too much fun. Like in a good tennis match, the debate could only be as good as the quality of the competition. I had proved myself a match for Peter, at least that day and time, and we both knew it and took satisfaction in it. Later that night a few of us arranged to get together and discuss TJ and the sessions. I was informally invited to moderate, as well as speak. We were doing fine when another group joined us. As the conversation got back around to race, racism, slavery, and TJ a member of the new group, and the only African-American among the students, expressed his strong disappointment with TJ regarding these issues. Even among TJ admirers this is a common, almost universal, response, but it was both exciting and disappointing to hear it expressed by a black college professor, who informed us that he had been educated at Harvard. Robert and I had already discussed these issues, but this night our differences became more apparent. We were both passionate (there's that word again), and yet civil and thoughtful. We simply were not going to agree, but that was OK with both of us.
But some of the people who came with Robert seemed very upset with my arguing with him. Then someone asked if all humans are prejudiced and racist. As I discussed the ideas about that in a brilliant book called The Moral Sense, two women who had clearly been upset with me told me I (or the author) was totally wrong. One of them cut me off to prove her point by a family anecdote. Unfortunately, I ended up crossing the line between passion and mild anger. Frankly, I can't stand arguments made solely on the basis of anecdotes. Sure anecdotes are useful to illustrate or support a position, but they don't by themselves prove anything. Furthermore, she had cut me off, told me I was wrong before I had made my point, and was vehement about her position, while admitting she liked to generalize. That was enough to trigger me, and I had raised my voice somewhat. The whole episode lasted just a few minutes and then I decided to go to the bathroom and let things settle down. I was relieved that when I eventually returned the gathering was ending.
The next morning I was informed by Peter that someone had complained that one (or more, it wasn't clear to me) people were very upset by my actions the previous night. I had done it again. I had annoyed someone and created a controversy. Without being excessively defensive I assured him I had actually tried to avoid a confrontation with the person I suspected I had offended. Although I was aware that many of the people present weren't disturbed, I realized that those who were took precedence. Peter and another faculty member who was standing with us both informed me that when they teach they are always careful to avoid upsetting any students. I was prety shocked at the need for university professors to be so careful.
Well, I too would like to avoid upsetting people, but not at the cost of always trying to prevent controversy rather than expressing what I really think. I wish I could always express myself without any great upset, but that just doesn't seem to be the case. So, in these pages controversy is welcomed, even encouraged, even if it means getting angry, criticizing, and, God forbid, not liking me. My Jefferson is not your Jefferson.
