A couple of weeks ago, I used this column space to criticize the decision-making process of Dr. Pestello. Today, I write to commend his recent decision-making, in regards to his decision to allow St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch to speak at the symposium hosted by the law school on Friday, Feb. 20.
One of my main criticisms of the decisions made by Dr. Pestello during his first few months at SLU has been their quick and rash nature that hasn’t included input from all corners of campus. As an example, I’ve pointed to the Clock Tower Accords. I am not saying the Accords aren’t a worthy endeavor, but I think they deserved more input from students, faculty, and staff – not just from those making the demands.
Dr. Pestello’s decision to allow McCulloch to speak showed promising ability for him to reach out to others in making University decisions; not just listen to those who protested or demanded McCulloch’s invitation be rescinded. In Pestello’s letter to the University, he highlighted conversations with University stakeholders, law school dean Mike Wolff and the students organizing the event. The decision also came weeks after the initial demands to disinvite McCulloch began circulating, showing Dr. Pestello took time to reflect and engage others in this decision.
I am pleased with the way Dr. Pestello went about making this decision, and proud of the decision made. After all, it seems this shouldn’t have been a hard decision. It makes sense that McCulloch, and St. Louis Police Chief Jon Belmar should be speaking at the law school symposium. Those involved in the Ferguson movement have written and spoken about their goal to push past the “status quo.”
Wouldn’t denying McCulloch and Belmar the chance to speak at SLU solidify the status quo? It seems that disinviting them, or cancelling the event, would have furthered disconnect between McCulloch, Belmar and the protestors.
Those who demanded McCulloch and Belmar be removed from the event shouldn’t be upset the two are speaking, but instead excited they accepted the invitation. Both came to speak at SLU knowing many of their harshest legal critics reside within the walls of our law school. Their acceptance to speak at the event shows a willingness to face their critics, and to engage in the dialogue that has encompassed Michael Brown’s death and the Ferguson movement. McCulloch and Belmar could have easily accepted the status quo and declined the invitations to speak. Their willingness to speak in the academic setting alone shows a breaking of the status quo that protesters wish to see.
The simple fact is that McCulloch and Belmar are two of the most prominent authorities on policing in the St. Louis community. Many protestors don’t like that, but McCulloch and Belmar’s jobs aren’t changing anytime soon. They hold the power to effect change in policing procedures and the justice system. Those who requested McCulloch and Belmar not speak shouldn’t protest their speeches, but should instead listen to what the two have to say. Change can’t come without engaging those in authority.
Listening to McCulloch and Belmar, and engaging in dialogue with them would truly push past the status quo. If those who have protested on campus this year truly believe in dialogue, they should be proud of the decision Dr. Pestello made in allowing the event to go on as planned.
At SLU, we like to brag about our Jesuit mission, one, which we argue, fosters dialogue and inclusiveness; to disinvite McCulloch and Belmar would be a dangerous threat to that mission.
