The controversy surrounding former Oberlin Women’s Lacrosse Coach Kim Russell, as detailed  in the New York Post and now many other outlets, has brought to the fore a pressing issue: the challenge of fostering genuine dialogue in an increasingly polarized society. Coach Russell faced intense criticism for a post on her personal social media in March 2022 expressing the view that transgender women should not compete in women’s sports. Some of the players she coached ended up sending it to the Associate Vice President of Athletics Advancement Natalie Winkelfoos. The backlash was immediate and severe, with school administrators, including Winkelfoos, labeling her as part of a “category of people that are filled with hate in the world.” Creg Jantz, assistant athletic director, said “It’s acceptable to have your own opinions, but when they go against Oberlin College’s beliefs, it’s a problem for your employment.” Winkelfoos also communicated to Russell that others considered her comments transgressive, transphobic, and unsafe. ​​She was eventually given a formal written warning and told that she needed to modify her behavior immediately. These statements and many others were recorded by Russell and were published in a documentary by the Independent Women’s Forum.

Russell refused to apologize for her comments and was subsequently removed as women’s lacrosse coach and reassigned to the role of employee wellness project manager. The College stated that this was not due to her expressed views and rather her decision to record individuals without their consent. I believe that this justification is to be taken with a heavy dose of skepticism. Oberlin College has a history of taking punitive action against faculty and staff under the guise of their behavior being dishonest or untrustworthy, and these punitive actions have historically occurred right after these individuals have expressed controversial or unpopular beliefs. In 2016, Oberlin fired Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Composition Joy Karega after she made comments critical of Israel and promoted controversial theories such as “ISIS is not a jihadist, Islamic terrorist organization. It’s a CIA and Mossad operation.” Many people deemed her comments and actions to be antisemitic and she was subsequently dismissed. The Board of Trustees claimed that she was “failing to meet the academic standards that Oberlin requires of its faculty and failing to demonstrate intellectual honesty.” 

Oberlin College’s mission statement states that Oberlin “seeks to offer a diverse and inclusive residential learning environment encouraging a free and respectful exchange of ideas.” Furthermore, “Oberlin College is committed to maintaining an environment where open, vigorous debate and speech can occur.” The treatment of Coach Russell is in stark contrast to these ideals. In an email communication to me, Coach Russell provided a more nuanced perspective on her views. She expressed her wholehearted support for every individual living their best life and emphasized her passion for women and girls having a separate sports category, referencing the pioneers of Title IX. Russell’s commitment to her students is evident. She expressed her love for the student-athletes she coaches and her appreciation for their passion. She believes in the power of conversation and the importance of listening with the intent to understand. You may disagree with her stance, but to say that she is filled with hate is clearly unfounded. 

The treatment of Coach Russell inadvertently reinforces divisions. By vilifying her, the College missed an opportunity for constructive dialogue that could have led to mutual understanding and change. Engaging with differing viewpoints in a constructive manner offers the opportunity to challenge beliefs and foster growth. By shutting down the conversation through punitive measures, we stifle the possibility of understanding.

It’s also worth noting that Oberlin, with its predominantly progressive environment, might occasionally lose sight of the broader American landscape. A Gallup poll from last June revealed that nearly 70 percent of American adults believe that transgender athletes should compete in sports teams corresponding to their assigned gender at birth. Dismissing such a significant portion of the population as hateful is not only unproductive but also detrimental to the cause of fostering understanding and acceptance.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” This sentiment rings true today. The best way to counter objectionable speech is with better, more informed speech.

Institutions of higher learning, like Oberlin College, are meant to be bastions of free thought and expression. They should be places where students, faculty, and staff can openly discuss and debate ideas, especially those that may be unpopular or controversial. This is how we grow as individuals and as a society. It’s how we challenge our own beliefs and come to understand those of others.

However, in recent years, there seems to be a growing trend towards silencing or punishing those who express unpopular opinions. This is not just a problem at Oberlin but at colleges and universities across the country. It’s a trend that is deeply concerning and threatens the very essence of what these institutions are meant to represent. This kind of ideological dogmatism, where anyone who expresses a view slightly different from the prevailing narrative is thrown to the wolves, bears a resemblance to fundamentalist religious groups in that it inverts the reasoning process. You are expected to accept a certain set of beliefs on faith, and any questioning or deviation from that set of beliefs and you’re cast out. People who disagree with you aren’t necessarily evil or hateful. It takes a worrying amount of hubris to believe that you are categorically right and everyone else is categorically wrong. I challenge everyone to introspect on their beliefs and challenge even their most closely held ones. You might learn something new.

The situation with Coach Russell is a prime example of this. While her views are unpopular among certain groups, that doesn’t mean she’s categorically wrong. Instead of vilifying her like Winkelfoos and other students did, the College should have used this as an opportunity to foster a meaningful dialogue on the issue. They could have organized non-adversarial open meetings, dialogues, or panel discussions. They could have brought in experts on both sides of the issue to provide insight and perspective. This would have been in line with Oberlin’s mission statement and would have provided a valuable learning experience for all involved.

Oberlin College, and all institutions, face a critical challenge. We must navigate the fine line between upholding community values and ensuring that the free and respectful exchange of ideas is not just a lofty ideal, but a lived reality. The treatment of Coach Russell serves as a stark reminder of the work that lies ahead. It’s a call to action for all of us to engage more deeply, listen more intently, and respond more thoughtfully, even when faced with views we vehemently disagree with. Only then can we hope to build a truly inclusive and understanding community.