arisbe

Why I Threw the Pie
An Open Letter from Josh Medlin

To the Earlham community and other interested persons:

Tuesday night, I threw a pie at William Kristol after saying "hello," accidentally hitting Doug Bennett. I did not intend to hurt Kristol or the Earlham/Richmond community, and regret that some seem to believe the opposite is true. I harbor no hatred for Kristol, but despise the words of his I've read and now heard. With the understanding I have now of the consequences, I still would have pied.

I have had conversations with many people who were intensely emotionally disturbed by my action, and hope to have more (although a current status of being suspended from campus will delay many of those valuable conversations that should clarify the "pieing" for others, and their reaction for me). Admittedly, the deeply emotional response of those who disagree surprised and burdens me - though I would maintain that such profound emotions should be fertile ground for deep self and communal transformation and examination of Truth. Sadly and self-destructively, our society privileges the rational and intellectual above the emotional and spiritual. It was in this sad and self-destructive spirit that William Kristol was invited to speak at Earlham.

Several of us decided to react to Kristol's coming to Earlham, and chose pieing as the appropriate response. We also attempted to distribute flyers explaining the action, but they were confiscated. Here are some motivations (which might not represent everyone involved) for our actions:

Ÿ William Kristol (including as co-founder and chair of the Project for the New American Century [www.newamericancentury.org]) has been integral to forming the current United States policy of explicitly seeking to strengthen its global domination - military, political, and economic - and status as the only "superpower." He advocates imperialism and, by 1998, promoted the invasion of Iraq. As he spoke specifically about matters of foreign policy, Kristol represented a spirit of domination and war. I don't wish to dialogue with domination or allow its message to be propagated. If he came to speak about his family, I wouldn't have pied him (assuming his policies of domination don't include family life). A more appropriate, more edifying "conservative" speaker could have been found. There are many local people who would have been more appropriate - why should the speaker be someone so successful by worthless conventional standards (and, probably, financially demanding of Earlham)? The pieing was intended to embarrass Kristol and those who invited him, while disrupting the speech.
Ÿ Almost certainly, there would be no possibility of real dialogue, as politicians (including Kristol on Tuesday night) skillfully veil their underlying message of domination with more benign language and manipulate tough questions to their advantage (or avoid them altogether). Because of Kristol's "credentials," social status, and this format of public speaking, almost any question by students would be disadvantageous as a tactic of exposure. I intended to disrupt and mock this superficial process of dialogue - cutting through social conventions, accepted channels of "approval," suppressive rules, authoritarian/bureaucratic constraints, etc.
Ÿ Hopefully, others (perhaps not many at Earlham) will be inspired to act similarly, in realization that "crazy" things can still be done and that no one is without vulnerability. Kristol might be largely responsible for the destruction of the earth and mass murder while extremely wealthy, powerful, and prominent - but everyone looks silly with pie on the face! Effective, fulfilling "activism" can't be respectful of or compromising with evil - it must resist passionately. The pieing was an intentionally brief reversal of the roles of dominating relationships.
Ÿ Related to these points, the pieing was in part an expression of frustration with (and perhaps anger at) intellectualism and the fundamentally problematic (albeit sometimes well-intentioned) system of higher education. While inviting further discussion of this topic, I will avoid it here to remain focused and attempt to decrease what seems to be a sense of personal antagonism.

There are many ways to frame these reasons (and others I may not have mentioned). Personally, I found the experience empowering and expanding. I never will have or want the prestige, wealth, or power Kristol has, but can act in an empowered and passionate manner.

To further illustrate the points critical of this attempt at dialogue, I question the commitment to discourse claimed by proponents of this "dialogue." Some people, who wanted to hear Kristol, want no association with me. I say this not to criticize those people's distaste for my “choice of pie,” but to demonstrate the fallacy of dialogue in this situation.

I hope the letter has been clear, helpful, and provocative; it has been written in solidarity with those responsible for the letter that appeared on Wednesday. I hope that many people will be comfortable asking me questions and answering mine (you are welcome to correspond by email, phone, or in person; hopefully I will be on campus soon to better facilitate that). I hope that Earlham will not expel me, although I'm already planning to take a leave of absence and leaning towards "rising out" of college. I hope that others will be inspired to passionate resistance of oppression and promotion of communities that actively express and create freedom and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Josh Medlin

[As posted for informational purposes by