Outrage On Campus: A Shrill A Minute
A regular commenter writes:
As I might have mentioned, my middle daughter has just started her first year at college. She's at Bryn Mawr, a women's school just west of Philadelphia. Well, she's not been there six weeks, and already she's getting a taste of earnest righteousness one sometimes sees from people that age.She told me that not long after the term started, a couple of young women living in the dorm starting displaying a Confederate flag. Outrage ensued! Demonstrations were held (in which faculty participated)! A hashtag campaign was started! The campus was, apparently, aghast at the entire episode.
My daughter told me she was bothered by the student and faculty reaction. Not so much because they were wrong; my daughter thought displaying the flag was kind of tasteless and unnecessarily provocative in an environment like her college. What upset her was the reaction, which she thought was over the top in its indignation. If people react with such shrillness, she wondered, doesn't that give the provocateurs the attention they desire?
She sent me some pictures of the student demonstration. I'm looking at one now -- a young woman carrying a sign reading, "Unsafe for Any/Unsafe for All." Considering the Paglia discussion on your blog the other day, I wonder just what the student considers "unsafe."
At any rate, a couple of links. The first one, from Philadelphia Magazine, is more-or-less straight news, and the comments are fairly sober. The second is from a site called Liberaland, and is a little more opinionated, with comments reading like a dorm debate.
His daughter added on to his email to me:
Yep, this was also reasonably close to what I had to say. In the documentary, I also talked about how those two girls made a dumb move - but it was just that. It's really easy to demonize those you don't know. If the campus had met the two girls, who were genuinely sorry for what they did, I bet their opinion would have softened. I don't know if you also want to mention this, but I told the camera people that in order "for our campus to move forward, we need to forgive." Apparently, forgiveness wasn't anywhere on their radars. :(I thought they were acting rather thuggish.
The "safety" reference reminds me, this is a good time to mention theFIRE.org president Greg Lukianoff's wonderful and sharply-argued new book, Freedom From Speech, in which he explains that "safety" has been co-opted. When people used to talk about being safe, they meant physically safe. Now, on campus, it means being safe from ideas that might cause one the slightest bit of discomfort.
Here's a related op-ed Lukianoff wrote in the WSJ, quoting UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks:
Mr. Dirks noted that the "free expression of ideas" is a "signature issue for our campus," but he cautioned that free speech can cause "division and divisiveness that undermine a community's foundation" and may threaten the "delicate balance between communal interests." That may be true, but that's the point. Freedom of expression can shake things up and disrupt dogmas--and that's a prized feature of open discourse, not a bug.Mr. Dirks writes that "we can only exercise our right to free speech insofar as we feel safe and respected in doing so." But a right to freedom of speech that ends whenever someone on campus claims not to feel "safe and respected" is a right to little more than polite chitchat. Speech that's free-with-some-qualifications means that students and faculty are left unable to take on the big debates and questions in a way that should be expected in an academic setting.
And while students should certainly feel "safe," it is important to recognize that these days the word has wandered far from its literal meaning. Feeling "safe" on college campuses means something closer to being completely comfortable, physically and intellectually. Boundary-pushing comedian Lenny Bruce, a hero to the Free Speech Movement, wouldn't have lasted a minute in front of today's college kids.
Mr. Dirks may have thought his call for civility would be uncontroversial, but even this seemingly benign message should not be greeted uncritically. As John Stuart Mill noted in "On Liberty" in 1859, calls for civility are often a tool to enforce conformity. A fierce and angry defense of the values of the dominant class might be hailed as righteous rage, but even a milder, dissenting opinion is easily labeled uncivil.
Anyone who says anything about the "confederate flag" aught to be summarily failed from their history class.
And if any of the teachers in the protest were from the history dept, they should be fired outright
Your regular comments daughter is just as big a moron as those who protested.
Just one flag officially flown under the Confederacy was the same as what people today think of as the confederate flag.
And it was a regimental flag and one of nearly a thousand different flags.
I swear to god if I had the power I would summarily execute the morons who cant be bothered to fucking learn a single god damn FACT about what ever shit they decide to be pissed about
lujlp at October 5, 2014 11:11 PM
People perceive the confederate flag as a symbol for support for slavery, etc.
Amy Alkon at October 6, 2014 5:51 AM
More here:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/confederate1.html
Amy Alkon at October 6, 2014 5:53 AM
So if people perceived ducks as causing rape they'd be justified in protesting duck ponds?
lujlp at October 6, 2014 6:04 AM
Did I misread the article ('m currently very sleep deprived)? The college didn't forbid the girls from flying the flag, correct? What happened was a bunch of other girls used their free speech to disapprove?
If so, I'm not seeing the problem. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of saying something that offends people and not having those people say something back.
NicoleK at October 6, 2014 6:34 AM
The Philadelphia Magazine article said the students flew the "Stars and Bars." I'm willing to bet they didn't - because the Stars and Bars would not have evoked the reaction described. Most people don't even recognize it for what it is when they see it.
Most likely, they flew the battle flag of the Army of Tennessee, the emblem later adopted by the KKK since most early members were veterans of that army (the KKK was founded in Memphis).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America
The Army of Tennessee adopted the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, a square banner with a blue cross of starts on a red field. To make it their own, the AoT flag was rectangular version of the AoNV's square banner.
Officially, the Confederate States of America had only one national flag, the Stainless Banner.
Thus endeth the vexillology lesson for today.
Conan the Grammarian at October 6, 2014 6:59 AM
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of saying something that offends people and not having those people say something back." NicoleK
The problem is that the people who are offended nowadays do more than say something back. They also have the power to get you fired, marginalize you, or get you discredited in some way. Brendan Eich, Mozilla Firefox CEO, was fired for donating money to a traditional marriage organization because the pro gay marriage crowd was offended.
On campus, showing a Confederate flag could be considered "hate speech" that could lead to disciplinary action of some kind. Whereas, showing a gay pride flag would not have been noticed.
Nick at October 6, 2014 7:47 AM
Meh, not a big deal. Once they've spent some time away from Redneckistan they'll most likely choose to abandon the traitor flag.
Now if we can just get the Che Guevara love flushed away, we'll be on to something.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 6, 2014 8:39 AM
The thing that I think is pernicious -- here and on campuses across America -- is the categorization of "unsafe."
Lukianoff is right in how the notion of "safety" is being co-opted -- and used to silence people.
Amy Alkon at October 6, 2014 9:15 AM
"Redneckistan"
Where is that, you self-important gasbag?
They're all over. You can find fire/brimstone radio in Maine, the U.P., and most of the flyover states you might pass on the way from one failed social experiment to another.
Take a real history course. Try to explain, yourself, what happens when a state government gets involved in trade matters with another sovereign nation without the approval of Federal authorities. Tell us all what you would do when the Feds move in on your state.
Be sure to cite the Constitution when you do.
News for the "slavery" fans: not a damned soul was the slightest bit interested in "civil rights" for a hundred years after the War. {Southern states} weren't the only ones that had to be TOLD the Constitution really applies to them by the Voting Rights Act.
Radwaste at October 6, 2014 9:42 AM
Thanks, Rad. Entertaining as always!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 6, 2014 12:13 PM
If people react with such shrillness, she wondered, doesn't that give the provocateurs the attention they desire?
__________________________________
Maybe, but there's more than one way to be "shrill."
After all, one doesn't claim that the way for teachers to get 7-year-olds to stop using four-letter words in class is to ignore them. That is, you don't screech at them, but you might give them detention. (Assuming telling their parents wouldn't put an end to the problem.)
lenona at October 6, 2014 12:14 PM
Well, it's a bit inconsistent of a history professor to insist that students be able to distinguish between, say, the various flags of the Holy Roman Empire, but then lump all of the Confederacy flags together (as well as throwing in some that have nothing to do with the Confederacy). And I've never heard anyone refer to the well-known battle flag as the "St. Andrew's Cross" -- yes, it's based on that general shape, but the colors are all wrong. Anyway...
The point being made here is not that there are some expressions that (probably) deserve social criticism. The point being made here is that it's a censorship movement. And censorship movements always start off presenting a benign face -- "we're only banning the ideas that are truly dangerous". And before you know it, "truly dangerous" gets defined down to pretty much everything. Jews, Catholics, trade unionists, etc.
The '60s campus radicals told us, the generations that followed them, "Question authority!" We took that lesson to heart. Now that the '60s campus radicals are the authority, we're questioning them. And they aren't liking it one bit.
Cousin Dave at October 6, 2014 1:19 PM
They didn't want to question authority, they wanted to overthrow authority and install the type of authority they wanted, namely them.
Questioning authority is good ... and necessary. However, sometimes authority is right. The hippies having a love-in in the dean's office acknowledged that ... and now the dean's office is theirs.
Once they became the authority, they became selective as to which authority should be questioned. As long as the protests are against their old enemies and/or in line with their quasi-Marxist ideas, they're full of support.
Hippie-esque Occupy Wall Street protests against the straw man 1% are good, but Tea Party protests against high taxes and government over-reach are bad.
Wall Street money is bad, unless it's going to a Democrat who publicly agitates against Wall Street money.
Environmentalism is good, unless it means you expect Al Gore or Matt Damon to fly coach; or Barbara Streisand to line-dry her clothes.
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
Conan the Grammarian at October 6, 2014 3:21 PM
Never acknowledged.
Proofreading. I need proofreading.
Conan the Grammarian at October 6, 2014 3:29 PM
I propose that the supporters of free speech adopt "Unsafe for One/Unsafe for All" as our own slogan. (Referring, of course, to the fact that if expressing one opinion can bring retaliation from these professional victim groups, then it isn't safe to express ANY opinion without clearing it with them first.)
jdgalt at October 6, 2014 7:30 PM
As a Civil War living-historian (I portray UNION cavalry, please), I'm familiar with the different attitudes presented by southron re-enactors: There's CONFEDERATES, and then there's REBELS. They ain't necessarily the same.
These college girls sound more like the latter.
jefe at October 6, 2014 7:46 PM
"They didn't want to question authority, they wanted to overthrow authority and install the type of authority they wanted, namely them."
We know that now, and it's now hilarious in an ironic way. If you just take their statements literally, they were right -- authority, like any belief system, should be questioned. Yes, it's true that sometimes (often?), authority is right, just as tradition usually has a good reason why it became tradition. But any belief system that isn't periodically re-examined becomes intellectually lazy, and once that happens, baser motives usually take over.
Of course, the 20th-century leftists were never liberal. The fact that they used liberalism as a mask and overran its neighborhood is one of the great tragedies of the human condition. The classical liberal impulse in the U.S. is trying to rebuild itself via the various strains of libertarianism, but it's a Sisyphean task.
Cousin Dave at October 7, 2014 6:45 AM
On questioning authority:
http://rosemond.com/johns-columns/columns-february-2013/
(There are several columns - check out the one on parental hysteria over "bullying," too.)
By Dr. John Rosemond.
"Someone recently told me she wanted her children to 'think for themselves.' Not me, I said. If I was still in my active parenting years, I would most definitely want my children to think like I do. That would be, in fact, my primary purpose. I would want them to accept that my values are the right values to hold and I’d want them to eventually make every effort to pass those values on to their children. But then, I don’t subscribe to the postmodern notion that all values are equal. I’m not a relativist.
"But even in the case of a person who doesn’t think like I do and (therefore) doesn’t hold the values I hold, wouldn’t that person still want their children to think like they do? Wouldn’t a person who believes all values are equal, that right and wrong are relative concepts, want their kids to believe likewise? It’s called a worldview, and there’s really little point in investing eighteen or more years of time, effort, and money in raising a child if one is not trying to produce someone who will subscribe to a certain, defined worldview and (therefore) champion certain values.
"How do you pass your values onto your children? From the earliest possible time in their lives, you talk about your values and you explain how they comprise your code for living. Why do you donate the one hundred dollar bill you found blowing in the wind to the local homeless shelter? Why don’t you allow your children to watch certain movies and television shows? You explain to your children that your definitions of right and wrong, your decisions, and your opinions about various matters are based on certain core principles. Your ability to articulate those principles clearly enough that a 5-year-old can understand them reflects that you are clear on them yourself. And you not only talk about your values, but you walk your talk. There’s no room for 'Do as I say, not as I do' in an ethical worldview.
"This is the process by which you shape your child’s character, by which you produce a good citizen, someone who will make the community a better place. Everything else—grades, athletic accomplishments, artistic talents, and so on—is secondary. Raising a mathematically and musically gifted and talented child who wins a scholarship to Harvard is fine, but when all is said and done, good parenting is simply an act of love for your neighbor.
"But make no mistake, no matter how well you communicate your worldview to your children, they will think for themselves, and from a very early age. They will even make decisions that will cause you to scratch your head in wonder or weep with sorrow. Parenting is an influence; it does not determine the outcome. Even the most well-parented (by whatever standard) child is capable, on any given day, of acting in ways that are completely inconsistent with his or her upbringing. That fact, if not fully accepted, can generate lots of parental frustration, lots of parental guilt, or lots of both.
"As your great-grandmother put it, 'Every child has a mind of his own.'"
lenona at October 7, 2014 8:08 AM
Thanks, Gog. Now, go read a book. Hardcover.
Radwaste at October 7, 2014 9:04 AM
"Someone recently told me she wanted her children to 'think for themselves.' Not me, I said. If I was still in my active parenting years, I would most definitely want my children to think like I do.
That's what everyone means by 'think for themselves.'
dee nile at October 7, 2014 11:00 AM
Well, what parents very often mean when they say that to their kids is: "Don't just follow the herd of your PEERS, since all too often, teens are more likely to make dumb decisions than the adult herd is - especially when it comes to things that aren't illegal but are definitely bad for you, like letting your grades slump just because half the kids in school don't see anything valuable in reading."
Or, you might say, blindly following the herd on every little thing won't make you that popular in the LONG run, since people respect leaders more than followers.
lenona at October 7, 2014 5:40 PM
Of course, "the herd" is a form of authority too.
Cousin Dave at October 8, 2014 7:09 AM
Leave a comment