Column: IU President Whitten's 'no confidence' response was heaped with logical fallacies

Editor's note: This column has been updated to remove the name of the college where the author teaches liberal arts courses at the author's request.

I’m a graduate worker at IU Bloomington, currently teaching in American Studies. Because my stipend falls well below a living wage, I picked up a side gig teaching online in a Focused Inquiry program, which provides generalized liberal arts courses intended for first and second-year undergraduates.

This semester, I’m working with students on detecting logical fallacies. This can be a tough subject for students, because logical fallacies are by their nature elusive. While isolated instances of logical fallacies sometimes occur, they’re best studied in the context of larger conversations.

I realized the students needed some in-depth practice, a concrete example of a text that is responding to other texts, something that could be analyzed deeply for its argumentative sleights of hand. And then I read IU President Pamela Whitten’s response to the IU faculty’s resolution of no confidence. To my delight, Whitten’s writing contained exactly what I needed.

After all, the faculty’s no confidence resolution, which was affirmed by 93% of the faculty who voted, laid out very clear concerns, backed by specific examples, about the Whitten administration’s failure to protect our academic freedom and free speech, and abetting a toxic environment on campus during an already turbulent time.

Whitten’s response addressed none of these concerns directly. It was perfect!

I joyously shared the letter with my students and read through it with them. Instead of making a good faith argument, the letter dances the glittering dance of generalities, striking a tone that slides delicately between the affable and foreboding. And the fallacies, my goodness — it’s a treasure trove.

It has the appeal to celebrity/authority: “We can uphold the legacy of Herman B Wells.”

It has a false dilemma: “Institutions are never static. They are evolving, innovating and getting stronger, or they are stagnant and losing momentum and relevance.”

It has the slippery slope: “Such difference are not tenable forever.”

It combines vagueness with appeals to ignorance: “Demographic changes, resulting financial realities, and political developments are only accelerating.”

And then there are all the red herrings — irrelevant points that divert attention from the actual topics at hand. Imagine 800 employees telling you they have zero confidence in you, and still possessing the rhetorical finesse to say, “I welcome thoughtful ideas and consideration.” Imagine hearing someone tell you, "This relationship is beyond repair," and replying, “I pledge to listen and to learn.”

Remember, these are academics who voted on this resolution. People who pick apart language, who would not vote in favor of such a resolution if they had even the tiniest sliver of confidence. Any amount of confidence is more than no confidence, after all.

After a long process of deliberation — petition, assembly, discussion — they determined that indeed there was absolutely no confidence in her to be found. And like a prima ballerina, Whitten deftly twirls aside with her simple “reflections on how we can move forward together.”

So thank you, President Whitten, for giving me such a stunning and concise example of fallacious thinking, wielded by a person with entirely too much money and power. You have made me a better teacher.

Jeff Moscaritolo is a PhD student in American studies at IU Bloomington and a writer of fiction. He resides in Bloomington.