Millennials' Push To Ban Free Speech
It isn't just millennials, of course, but I perceive the notion that speech should not be free to be the strongest amongst millennials.
Eloquent and smart piece by the UK writer Nick Cohen -- who happens to be on the left.
In the piece, he explains John Stuart Mill's "harm principle," Mill's notion that stopping speech is only permissible when it incites violence -- actual physical violence.
Yet now, students -- using thinking out of the academic left -- conflate emotional safety and physical safety. They use this conflation to call for bans on speech they dislike or disagree with, because it fails to conform to what is considered correct -- correct in terms of what the rational quicksand that is po-mo academia says is correct.
A bit from his piece:
To a woman struggling to be treated equally and taken seriously, Mill's permissiveness must appear next to useless. All around her society shows women as lumps of meat for men to drool over and prod. They challenge her sense of who she is and what she may become. But according to the old liberalism, she cannot censor unless she can prove that pornography and sexualised films and advertising are causing rape or promoting prejudice. Why should she accept a bar raised so high she can never jump it? Why should she spend years arguing for men to change, when experience has taught her that men don't change? State power could spare her from hard and unsatisfactory argument and give her what she wanted in a moment.The same applies to a black man confronted with the everyday racism of parts of the Right, or a Jew confronted with the everyday racism of Islamists and parts of the Left, or a gay man worried about homophobia or a Muslim frightened of Islamophobia. They don't want to be told they can ban speech only if a speaker whips his audience into such a state they are ready to attack a mosque or a gay bar or a synagogue. They feel the urgent hurt of prejudice now, and they want it stopped. A failure to demand that newsagents take sex magazines off the shelves, or that the police arrest a racist on Twitter, or that the government pass laws against "hate speech" is a kind of betrayal. Defeating your opponents in argument is not enough, when argument contains an admission that they at least have a case that is worth arguing against. Only silencing them can show your commitment to the cause, and provide an authentic measure of your disgust. Anything else is a collaboration with those who hate you.
...Go into the modern university and you won't hear much from Mill, John Milton, George Orwell, or from the millions around the world who have had to learn the hard way why freedom of speech matters. Instead, academics promote philosophers far less rigorous than Feinberg. Jeremy Waldron, for instance, suggests speech which attacks the dignity of others should be banned. Rae Langton of Cambridge University puts the arguments of the anti-pornography campaigners of the 1980s into obscure - and therefore academically respectable - prose. Pornography silences women, she argues, not by actually silencing them, but by making their protestations harder to believe.
...When I argue for freedom of speech at student unions, I am greeted with incomprehension as much as outrage. It's not only that they don't believe in it, they don't understand how anyone could believe in it unless they were a racist or rapist. The politicians, bureaucrats, chief police officers and corporate leaders of tomorrow are at universities, which teach that open debate and persuasion by argument are ideas so dangerous they must be banned as a threat to health and safety. Unless we challenge them in the most robust manner imaginable, whatever kind of country they grow up to preside over is unlikely to be a very free one.
There was a bit of an argument on Twitter yesterday, in response to cognitive scientist Christopher Chabris' tweeting of the op-ed from the Wellesley paper. The thing merely said that "hostility" could be warranted, not "violence." But Chabris took it to mean "violence" -- a coded way of saying violence -- and I think Cohen's piece makes a good argument that Chabris is right.
A frightening document: student *journalists* endorse violence against speakers who "refuse to adapt their beliefs" pic.twitter.com/dpedkBCQUg
— Christopher Chabris (@cfchabris) April 16, 2017
@hardsci The "hostility" they say "may be warranted" is more than mere debate or discussion--so it must include physical blocking of speakers etc.
— Christopher Chabris (@cfchabris) April 16, 2017
@BrendanNyhan @hardsci If by "hostility" they mean "counterarguments" then it's a very inapt usage of that word.
— Christopher Chabris (@cfchabris) April 16, 2017
Chabris, on his blog, posts his version of what a college president should say to people demanding that a speaker invited to campus be disinvited:
To those who say the speaker may make them feel unsafe, I must point out that higher education is not designed to make people safe. Instead, it is our society's designated "safe space" for disruptive intellectual activity. It's a space that has been created and set apart specifically for the incubation of knowledge, by both students and faculty. Ideas that may seem dangerous or repugnant can be expressed here--even if nowhere else--so that they can be analyzed, discussed, and understood as dispassionately as possible. Many of humanity's greatest achievements originated as ideas that were suppressed from the public sphere. Some, like the theory of evolution by natural selection, equal rights for women and minorities, trade unions, democracy, and even the right to free speech and expression, are still seen as dangerous decades and centuries later.If you are against this speaker coming here, please also consider this: Some members of our community--some of your friends and colleagues--do want him to visit. By asking me to disinvite him, you are implicitly claiming that your concerns and preferences are more important than those of the people who invited him. Are you really sure that you are so right and they are so wrong? Psychologists have found that people tend to be overconfident in their beliefs, and poor at taking the perspective of others. That might be the case here.
...Note that it's especially important for us to be open to viewpoints not already well-represented among our faculty. The professors here are a diverse group, but many studies have shown that professors tend to be more politically left-wing than the population at large. Even the most conscientious instructor may inadvertently slant his teaching and assignments towards his own political viewpoint. Of course, this applies more in the social sciences and humanities than in math or physics, but it does happen. Giving campus organizations wide latitude to invite the speakers they wish helps to increase the range of thoughts that are aired and discussed here.
If you feel that this speaker's talk might upset you, I offer this advice: Go. Yes, go to the talk, listen to it, record it--if the speaker and hosts give permission--and think about it. Expose yourself to ideas that trouble you, because avoiding sources of anxiety is not the best way to cope with them.
But don't try to interrupt or shout the speaker down. Take this golden opportunity to train yourself to respond to speech that upsets you by analyzing it, looking up its sources, developing reasoned counterarguments, and considering why people agree with it and whether it might not be as contemptible as you have been told. These are the skills that all members of our community are committed to building.
via @JeromeTaylor
One of the problems I see with this blocking of free speech is that it prevents people from not just expressing opinions that others might find offensive, but it would also stop people from stating things that are objective fact.
For instance, black people account for only around 13% of the population, but according to FBI crime statistics, they commit over half of all robbery and over half of all murder. In fact, blacks are overrepresented in every crime statistic, with one exception: DUI.
Every other crime is out of proportion to their population, even traditionally "white collar" crimes, such as fraud and embezzlement.
Stating this would be considered "hate speech," even though it's not an opinion; it's objective fact.
Patrick at April 17, 2017 5:24 AM
Patrick, you're right -- it's a sort of substitute for religion, with strict rules for dealing with people who commit blasphemy and apostasy. As was the case with the Church vs. Galileo, actual facts must yield to the Revealed Truth. ("Revealed to who"?, one asks at this point..) Questioning the belief system might expose its fundamental intellectual and moral weaknesses. Can't have that. Fragile egos are at stake!
However, I'm not convinced that this belief is common to Millennials generally. The liberal-arts-college SJWs are a self-selected audience, and they are good at drawing attention to themselves. They know how to jerk people's chains. But a lot of the polling data I see says that Millennials generally are becoming more conservative. Of course, "conservative" doesn't necessarily mean they support free speech, but I've seen several liberal pundits recently noting their surprise at discovering that most of the free-speech champions are on what is considered the Right now. However many actual liberals are left in America now, I think they are realizing that the Left betrayed them, and always intended to do so. There's a half-century-overdue day of reckoning coming.
As for genuine exchange of ideas, I don't fear for it as much as some people do. If it's no longer welcome in the academy, it will move elsewhere. Arguably this has already happened -- I think there are more capable and lucid writers of every political persuasion around the internet than what you will find in most schools these days. Of course, the problem with the Internet is the tendency for audiences to self-segregate. However, I think that's a transient problem; a lot of people are re-thinking their political and philosophical views these days, and they need some time away from the madding crowd to think things through. The SJWs are today's reactionaries, driven by raw, bleeding, rash-covered emotion. They contribute nothing useful to the conversation, and I think a lot of people are realizing that.
Cousin Dave at April 17, 2017 7:01 AM
So...this mythical woman wants to use the power of the state to fight reproductive imperative in men?
Good luck with that. Let me know how that works out for you.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 17, 2017 7:13 AM
"Vague and ominous to be sure but I don't see advocacy of violence."
LOL! Don't know about you but any situation that is "vague and ominous" should have your neck hairs standing up, your fight or flight hormones kicking in, and racking your gun slide if you have one.
(In horror movies isn't this the situation just before the blonde goes down into the BASEMENT to see what the noise was?)
Bob in Texas at April 17, 2017 7:37 AM
I've always said that getting a speaker you don't like booted from campus (before they can even speak) robs you of one of the most cherished rites of passage as a college student: Showing up for the Q&A session. Ask them the question they never thought they'd be asked (and have no good answer to) and put that shit on YouTube.
If there is no Q&A session, hold counter protest that draws bigger crowds than the speaker. Invite local media. Bonus points if it raises money for a cause the speaker hates. Extra bonus points if you donate it in the speaker's name.
sofar at April 17, 2017 8:13 AM
Mills would be horrified. The Left actively encourages violence, organizes riots, all because they are offended and being offended is the "same" as actual violence. These people should get out more. Actual violence is quite different. Heck, I am offended every time a politician opens their mouth--any politician. I find the ignorance and self-serving nature of their speech deeply offensive. But I don't advocate violence.
"All around her society shows women as lumps of meat for men to drool over and prod." This is a very odd complaint. In public I never see men drooling over women or prodding them. Perhaps I live in a nice part of town. But if the intent is that women are offended that men have sexual desire...what universe are they living in? Without intense sexual desire and attachment there would be no families and no children. It has to be intense to last decades and weather difficulties, to bond a man and woman. Would men go to work and then give all their money to a woman without this strong bond? Not.
cc at April 17, 2017 8:54 AM
As the hostility and rhetoric against free speech ramps up, I've noticed that the list of unacceptable speech keeps increasing.
Shtetl G at April 17, 2017 9:04 AM
The thing most people get wrong about the Church vs. Galileo is that the Church's position was also supported by facts.
Galileo observed mathematically that the Earth must revolve around the Sun. However, if the Earth were in fact moving, the observers of the day should have been able to see a parallax shift in their observations of distant stars and other heavenly bodies. They couldn't. Today, we know their instruments were too primitive to enable them to observe what Galileo could only prove mathematically. We can observe the parallax shift with modern instruments. "Stellar parallax was finally observed in 1838 by Friedrich Bessel, a German scientist."
So, the Galileo trial was far from a religious body ganging up on a consensus of scientists. Numerous respected astronomers of the time were in line with the Church's position and disagreed with Galileo's equations.
"These scientists were correct that a moving earth required that there must be stellar parallax. They were also correct that this parallax could not be observed. However, their rejection of the hypothesis was based on more than this; it was also based on the assumption that the stars were millions of miles away. These stars were billions of miles away. Given the instrumentation of the day, one could expect to detect stellar parallax if the stars were millions of miles away but not if they were billions of miles away."
Should the Church have been involved in the debate? No. But, back then, Church doctrine followed scientific thought very closely. And the prevailing scientific theory at that time was that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Conan the Grammarian at April 17, 2017 10:48 AM
Showing up for the Q&A session. Ask them the question they never thought they'd be asked (and have no good answer to) and put that shit on YouTube.
That takes smarts. SJWs lack smarts.
dee nile at April 17, 2017 12:15 PM
Showing up for the Q&A session. Ask them the question they never thought they'd be asked (and have no good answer to) and put that shit on YouTube. - sofar
Don't forget to keep the question as simple as possible. Too many people add preambles and make the questions so meandering, it's difficult for even the most intelligent speaker to figure out how to answer the questions without taking notes.
Fayd at April 17, 2017 3:45 PM
The example I love of one of them trying, and failing miserably, is the one of the girl asking Trump (pre-election) if he'd pay her the same as a man. Then stands there with this smug, triumphant look on her face. He just answers, "If you do as good a job I will."
Miguelitosd at April 17, 2017 5:00 PM
It would have been wiser for Galileo not to have published a book where he essentially called the pope 'The Simpleton'. The science probably wasn't really an issue. Insulting a reigning monarch (which is pope was) often resulted in execution. By comparison Galileo got off lightly.
Ben at April 17, 2017 5:12 PM
"However, I'm not convinced that this belief is common to Millennials generally."
It applies to a major subgroup of Millennials. This is one of those things where there is a major split in the generation.
Ben at April 18, 2017 6:16 AM
"It applies to a major subgroup of Millennials. This is one of those things where there is a major split in the generation."
Yeah, I don't have a good feel for what the percentages are. But it is apparent that the Millennials aren't nearly as monolithic as some people make them out to be.
Cousin Dave at April 18, 2017 6:59 AM
My feel is 30-40% really took in the marxist/taker mentality currently advocated in public schools. They tend to be loud, annoying, and violent in groups. Then there is another 20-30% who actively reject all of that. Mostly due to being lied to all the time in school and poorly manufactured lies at that. These people tend to be quiet, hardworking, and somewhat antisocial. The rest don't fall into either camp too solidly.
There is an interesting dynamic going on. After 12 years of anyone who spoke out or even slightly questioned the party line got punished you end up with those who have differing views have been trained quite rigorously not to express them. And anyone who is willing to express the party view is encouraged to do so at all times. So the marxists are very public and loud and their opponents don't say anything against them. But there isn't much money in marxism. It all sticks to the one or two people at the top. So later in life those marxists end up poor but the people who were successful still don't speak out.
Hence the marxists appear to be the entire group.
Ben at April 18, 2017 7:53 AM
The example I love of one of them trying, and failing miserably, is the one of the girl asking Trump (pre-election) if he'd pay her the same as a man. Then stands there with this smug, triumphant look on her face. He just answers, "If you do as good a job I will."
Miguelitosd at April 17, 2017 5:00 PM
_________________________________________
Did she start to cry? Or, more likely, did she look more as though she'd won, because she assumed he was simply lying - as usual?
lenona at April 18, 2017 9:39 AM
It's advocating physical violence because, since speech they don't like is already violence, punching some guy who says something you don't like is just honest self defense. It's the reason the term "violence" has been expanded.
richardaubrey at April 18, 2017 12:54 PM
Right. It's Cluster B-style moral rationalizing. They suffer some real or perceived minor slight, so that gives them the moral right to go nuclear in response.
Cousin Dave at April 19, 2017 6:47 AM
Leave a comment