In last week's Collegian, Alex Borwick and Jeff Hunt suggested that the Jepson School's recognition of Victoria Cobb's leadership accomplishments was inappropriate in light of her political positions and professional advocacy. The relevant question to consider, however, is not whether we agree with her political leanings (and I will not argue for them here), but whether she has met the criteria set forth by the Jepson School for quality leadership. The article errs in its conflation of the two.
Borwick and Hunt argue that Ms. Cobb's (conservative) political values ought to disqualify her from recognition as a Jepson leader because the principles of the school, they argue, stand in stark opposition to Cobb's political convictions. So exactly what are the trademarks of "Jepson leadership"? Surely there are many, but Borwick and Hunt offer one in particular: to "foster a culture of inclusivity."
If being inclusive is important to Jepson, barring an otherwise qualified individual from recognition on the basis of her political beliefs should strike us as completely contrary to the values of the institution. Inclusivity broadly defined entails unqualified tolerance of — though not necessarily agreement with — all people, regardless of political affiliation. Borwick and Hunt seem to want to redefine "inclusivity" and "tolerance" to include only those people and beliefs with which they agree; to hijack an otherwise agreeable terminology in order to propagate their political convictions while stifling dissent. Attempts to end the debate by characterizing gender and abortion as civil rights issues (rather than political ones) only beg the question; deciding what counts as a "right" is a fundamentally political question about which rational people may disagree. Perhaps Borwick and Hunt (or maybe even most Jepson students) disagree with Ms. Cobb's views, but does that preclude her from being a leader? If inclusivity means anything, it must at least make room for an intelligent discussion of our differences. Isn't this what leaders do?
Borwick and Hunt's article, however, suggests that the criteria for being a good Jepson leader includes (or at least ought to include) a specified set of political beliefs — namely their own. Does Jepson agree with this? Do they really want to project the image that one of the standards for legitimate leadership is a certain political worldview? If so, how closed-minded! Perhaps Borwick and Hunt would favor an additional section on the Jepson application (possibly titled "Political Litmus Test") in an effort to weed out anyone who doesn't agree with them. If being conservative precludes students from being leaders, why admit them to the Leadership School in the first place?
Recent statements to the university community by Arts & Sciences Dean Andrew Newcomb should settle the question. He wrote, "We cannot ignore controversial topics, artists, or authors," and that recognition of them "does not mean we condone [their] content." I hope the Jepson School will exercise the courageous leadership it exists to foster and stand behind their decision to recognize Victoria Cobb rather than giving in to an impetuous few who cannot separate what it means to be a good leader from their own political opinions.
Support independent student media
You can make a tax-deductible donation by clicking the button below, which takes you to our secure PayPal account. The page is set up to receive contributions in whatever amount you designate. We look forward to using the money we raise to further our mission of providing honest and accurate information to students, faculty, staff, alumni and others in the general public.
Donate NowRead More
OPINION | The sustainability standoff
By Taylor McKie | 3 days ago
Regrets? I've had a few
By Joe Hoyle | April 9, 2024