On Beauty (39 page)

Monty now stood, shaking his head in apparent amusement. He raised his hand. ‘Please,' he said, ‘may I?'

Jack looked pained. How he hated such conflict in his faculty!

‘Well, now, Professor Kipps – I think if we can just, just, just . . . if we can let Howard finish his pitch, as it were . . .'

‘Of course. I shall be patient and tolerant as my colleague defames me,' said Monty with this same grin and sat back down.

Howard pressed on: ‘I will remind the committee that last year members of this university lobbied successfully to ban a philosopher who had been invited to read here, but who, it was decided by these members, could not have a platform at this institution because he expressed, in his printed work, what were deemed to be “Anti-Israeli” views and arguments that were offensive to members of our community. This objection (although not an opinion with
which I concurred) was democratically passed, and the gentleman was kept from Wellington on the grounds that his views were likely to be offensive to elements of this community. It is on
exactly the same grounds
that I stand before you this morning, with one key difference. It is not my habit or to my taste to ban speakers of different political colours from my own from this campus, which is why I am not requesting such a ban outright but rather asking to see the text of these lectures so that they may be considered by this faculty –
with
the view that any material that appears to us, as a community, to contravene the internal “hate laws” of this institution – as laid out by our own Equal Opportunities Commission of which I am the chair – can be excised. I have asked Professor Kipps, in writing, for a copy of his text – he has refused. I ask again, today, at the very least, for an outline of the lectures he intends to give. My grounds for concern are two: first, the reductive and offensive public statements the Professor has made about homosexuality and race and gender throughout his career. Second, his lecture series “Taking the Liberal Out of the Liberal Arts” shares a title with an article he recently published in the
Wellington Herald
, which itself contained sufficient homophobic material to convince the Wellington LesBiGay group to picket and obstruct any lectures that the Professor might give at this college. For those of you who missed that article, I have photocopied it – I believe Lydia will give these out to anyone who wishes to read it at the end of our session. So, to conclude,' said Howard, folding his papers in half, ‘my proposal to Professor Kipps himself is as follows: that we will be given the text of the lectures; that, failing this, we will be given a proposed outline of these lectures; or, failing that, we shall be told this morning what the intention of the lectures is.'

‘Is that . . . ?' queried Jack, ‘That's the meat of your . . . so, I suppose we must turn to the Professor and . . . Professor Kipps, could you possibly . . .'

Monty stood and held the back of the chair in front of him, leaning into it as if it were a lectern.

‘Dean French, it would be a
pleasure
. How
entertaining
all that was. I love liberal fairytales! So restful – they put no undue strain
upon one's mind.' A nervous giggle from the faculty. ‘But, if you don't mind, I will stick to fact for a moment and answer Dr Belsey's concerns as directly as I possibly can. In answer to his requests I fear I must decline all three, given the free country I stand in and the freedoms of speech I claim as my inalienable right. I will remind Dr Belsey that neither of us is in England any more.' This raised an actual laugh, stronger than the one Howard had received. ‘If it will make him feel better – I know how much the liberal mind likes to
feel better
– I hold myself completely responsible for the contents of the lectures I give. But I am afraid I am quite unable to answer his frankly bizarre request for their “intention”. In fact, I admit it surprises and delights me that a self-professed “textual anarchist” like Dr Belsey should be so passionate to know the
intention
of a piece of writing . . .'

A sprinkle of mirthless intellectual laughter, of the kind one hears at bookshop readings.

‘I had no idea,' continued Monty gaily, ‘what a stickler he was for the absolute nature of the written word.'

‘Howard, do you want to . . . ?' said Jack French, but Howard was already speaking over him.

‘Look, my point here is this,' declaimed Howard, turning to face Liddy as the nearest interlocutor, but Liddy was not interested. She was reserving her energies for Item 7 on the agenda, the History Department's application for two new photocopiers. Howard turned back to the crowd. ‘How
can
he at one and the same time claim responsibility for his text and yet not be able to tell us what
intention
he has for the text?'

Monty put his hands on each side of his own belly. ‘Really, Dr Belsey, this is too stupid to answer. Surely a man can write a piece of prose without “intending” any particular reaction, or at least he can and will write without presuming every end or consequence of that piece of prose.'

‘You tell me, mate – you're the constitutional originalist!'

This got a wider, more sincere laugh. For the first time, Monty began to look a little ruffled.

‘I will be writing,' pronounced Monty, ‘of my beliefs concerning
the state of the university system in this country. I will be writing employing my knowledge
as well as
my moral sense –'

‘
With
the clear intention of antagonizing and alienating various minority groups on this campus. Will he be responsible for that?'

‘Dr Belsey, if I may refer you to one of your own liberal lodestars, Jean-Paul Sartre: “We do not know what we want and yet we are responsible for what we are – that is the fact.” Now is it not
you
, Dr, who speaks of the instability of textual meaning? Is it not
you
, Dr, who speaks of the indeterminacy of all sign systems? How, then, can I possibly predict
before
I give my lectures how the “multivalency”,' said Monty, enunciating the word with obvious disgust, ‘of my own text will be received in the “heterogeneous consciousnesses” of my audience?' said Monty, sighing heavily. ‘Your entire line of attack is a perfect model of my argument. You photocopy my article but you do not take the time to read it properly yourself. In that article I ask: “why is there one rule for the liberal intellectual and another rule entirely for his conservative colleague?” And I ask you now: why should I offer the text of my lectures to a committee of liberal interrogators and thus have my own – much vaunted in this very institution – right to free speech curtailed and threatened?'

‘Oh, for
fucks
sake–' flashed Howard. Jack leaped from his chair.

‘Umm, Howard, I'm going to have to ask you to mind your p's and q's there.'

‘No need, no need – I am not so delicate, Dean French. I was under no illusion that my colleague was a gentleman . . .'

‘Look,' said Howard, his face budding rouge, ‘what I want to know – '

‘Howard, please,' said Monty scoldingly, ‘I did do you the courtesy of listening until you had finished.
Thank
you. Now: two years ago, at Wellington, in this great freedom-loving institution, a group of Muslim students requested the right to have a room given over to their daily prayers – a request Dr Belsey was instrumental in rebuffing, with the result that this group of Muslims is presently pursuing Wellington College through the courts –
FOR THE
RIGHT
,' intoned Monty over Howard's remonstrations, ‘
for the right
to practise their faith –'

‘And of course your
own
defence of the Muslim faith is legendary,' taunted Howard.

Monty assumed a face of historical gravity. ‘I support any religious freedom against the threat of secular fascism.'

‘Monty, you know as well as I do that that case has
nothing to do
with what we're discussing today – this college has always maintained a policy of, of, non-religious activity – we do not discriminate – '

‘HA!'

‘We do
not
discriminate, but
all
students are asked to pursue their religious interests outside of the confines of the university. But that case is an irrelevance today – what we're discussing today is a cynical attempt to force upon our students what is basically an explicitly right-wing agenda disguised as a series of lectures on the –'

‘
If
we are to speak of explicit agendas, we might discuss the under-the-counter manner in which class admissions are organized here at Wellington – a policy that is a blatant corruption of the Affirmative Action bill (which, by the way, is itself a corruption) – whereby students who are NOT enrolled at this college are yet taught in classes here, by professors who, at their own “discretion” (as it is so disingenuously put), allow these “students” into their classes, choosing them over
actual
students better qualified than they – NOT because these young people meet the academic standards of Wellington, no, but because they are considered
needy cases
– as if it helps minorities to be pushed through an elite environment to which they are not yet suited. When the truth is that the liberal – as ever! –
assumes
there is benefit, only because doing so makes the liberal
herself
,' said Monty with mischievous emphasis, ‘feel good!'

Howard clapped his hands and looked to Jack French in exasperation.

‘Sorry –
which
case are we arguing now? Is there anything in this university that Professor Kipps is
not
on a crusade against?'

Jack French looked distraughtly at the agenda notes Liddy had just passed him.

‘Umm, Howard is correct there, Montague – I understand you have a concern about class admissions but that issue comes fourth, I think you'll find, on our agenda. If we could just stick with the . . . I suppose the question, as it has been framed by Howard, is: Will you give your text to the community?'

Monty pushed his chest up and out, and held his pocket-watch in his hand. ‘I will not.'

‘Well, will you submit to putting it to the vote?'

‘Dean French, with all due respect to your authority, I will not. No more than I would accept a vote on whether a man might be allowed to cut out my tongue – a vote is completely irrelevant in this context.'

Jack looked hopelessly at Howard.

‘Opinions from the floor?' suggested exasperated Howard.

‘Yes . . .' said Jack, with great relief. ‘Opinions from the floor? Elaine – did you want to say something?'

Professor Elaine Burchfield pushed her glasses up her nose. ‘Is Howard Belsey
really
suggesting,' she said with patrician disappointment, ‘that Wellington is such a terribly
delicate
institution that it fears the normal cut and thrust of political debate within its halls? Is the liberal consciousness (which it pleases Professor Kipps to ridicule)
really
so very slight that it cannot survive a series of six lectures that come from a perspective other than its own? I find that prospect very alarming.'

Howard, glowing with anger now, addressed his answer to a high spot on the back wall. ‘I'm obviously not making myself clear. Professor Kipps is
on record
, alongside his “kindred spirit” Justice Scalia, denouncing homosexuality as an evil –'

Monty sprang from his seat once more. ‘I
object
to that characterization of my argument. In print I defended Justice Scalia's view that it is
within the right
of committed Christian people to hold such an opinion of homosexuality – and furthermore that it is an infringement of the rights of Christian people when their personal objection to gay people,
which
they hold to be a moral principle, is
translated into the legal category of “discrimination”. That was my exact case.'

Howard watched with satisfaction as Burchfield and Fontaine shrank in distaste at this clarification. Which made it all the more astonishing to Howard when Fontaine now raised her infamous lesbian baritone to say: ‘We may find these views objectionable, even repulsive – but this is an institution that defends intellectual discussion and debate.'

‘Jesus Christ – Gloria, this is the
opposite
of thought!' cried the head of the Social Anthropology Department. Thus began a verbal ping-pong, which collected more players as the argument ranged the room and continued without the need for Howard as umpire.

Howard sat down. He listened to his argument get lost in accounts of other cases, some similar, some tediously irrelevant. Erskine, meaning well, gave a long and exhaustive history of the civil rights movement, the point of which seemed to be that given Kipps's rigid views of the constitution, Kipps himself would have never voted with the majority on Brown v. Board of Education. It was a good point, but it got lost in Erskine's emotional delivery. Half an hour passed this way. At last Jack brought the debate under control. Gently he pressed Monty with Howard's request. Once more, Monty refused to share the text of his lectures.

‘Well,' conceded Jack, ‘given that clear determination on Professor Kipps's part . . . but we do still have the right to vote on whether these lectures should take place at all. I know that wasn't your original intention, Howard, but given the circumstances . . . We do have that power.'

‘I have no objection to a democratic vote where there is right and power, which there is here,' said Monty in stately mode. ‘It is clearly the members of this faculty who ultimately decide who shall or shall not be free to speak at their college.'

Howard, in response to this, could offer only a sulky nod.

‘All in favour – I mean, in favour of the lectures going ahead, without prior consultation.' Jack put his glasses on to count the vote. There was no need. With the exception of Howard's small pockets of support, all hands went up.