Shedding Light on Left-Wing Authoritarianism

From a recent article in The Atlantic: 'The Experts Somehow Overlooked Authoritarians on the Left Many psychologists wrongly assumed that coercive attitudes exist only among conservatives."

One reason left-wing authoritarianism barely shows up in social-psychology research is that most academic experts in the field are based at institutions where prevailing attitudes are far to the left of society as a whole. Scholars who personally support the left’s social vision—such as redistributing income, countering racism, and more—may simply be slow to identify authoritarianism among people with similar goals.

One doesn’t need to believe that left-wing authoritarians are as numerous or as threatening as their right-wing counterparts to grasp that both phenomena are a problem. While liberals—both inside and outside of academia—may derive some comfort from believing that left-wing authoritarianism doesn’t exist, that fiction ignores a significant source of instability and polarization in our politics and society.

Continue ReadingShedding Light on Left-Wing Authoritarianism

One Suggestion for Hacking a Path out of the Wokeness Thicket

I'm feeling sad today, perhaps because I read too much "news." I struggle when I try to identify any institution that is functioning well. Perhaps the court system is the best example of an (imperfect) functioning institution, although the elephant in the room is that those who don't have the money to hire good lawyers are almost always fucked over by those who have lawyers. Okay . . . but when both sides have good lawyers, the system seems to work fairly well fairly often.

Some of our newly dysfunctional institutions have been captured by Woke ideology, resulting in a thick atmosphere of fear in which smart people intentionally say untrue things so that they don't get yelled at by the mob, which can result in suspension and job loss. It's a terrible situation in many institutions, especially in news media and colleges. I base this on personal stories I've heard from several self-censoring professors who are afraid to engage in a free exchange of ideas in the classroom. I've reported many of these problems at this website over the past two years.

When I feel this sort of melancholy, I actively seek out good news, and I usually find some reason to be hopeful. Today, it comes from one of my favorite writers and thinkers, Jonathan Haidt, who participated in a discussion group at Heterodox Academy (I was one of many HxA members attending). It was a long discussion and there were many speakers. Here's an excerpt from Haidt's presentation:

It's the climate of fear. I'm actually starting a new book on this. It's called Life After Babble: How we lost the Ability to Think Well Together. The core idea is that social media, made reputational destruction democratized, incentivized and freed from accountability. And that's what happened in 2014. And that's why we've had a climate of fear since 2014. So you're right to be afraid.

But here's what I've learned in the last couple years: almost everybody is reasonable. Leaders are the ones who get shot with little darts. Whenever they you know, it's as though they're physically getting shot with darts. And so they all came very quickly. But those who hold out, those who don't cave-- if you just wait a week--it's a hurricane inside of a hall of mirrors, and it blows on to something else a week or two later. So the people who stand up to it and don't bend a knee and don't bow down, they end up looking very, very good. So what I'm trying to develop is the idea that every field needs high professional standards, and a big part of that is depoliticization is not being on a team not fighting for politics, but living up to your standard as a professor doing research. You're a scholar, and what I hope we can develop an HxA is this notion of very high professional standards. If you're a true professional, you live your standards, and then you should be unafraid. We're not there yet, but I think that's that's where I think we can get to very quickly.

Continue ReadingOne Suggestion for Hacking a Path out of the Wokeness Thicket

SCOTUS: The Function of Free Speech is to Invite Dispute and Stir People to Anger

The next time someone tells you that you need to be silenced because your speech is offending them, mention this quote from the U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), reversing a disturbing-the-peace conviction of a hate-monger. Justice Douglas wrote the opinion, which included these gems:

The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion. As Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365, 260, it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.

Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, 315 U.S. at pages 571-572, 62 S.Ct. at page 769, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 262, 193, 159 A.L.R. 1346; Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 373, 1253. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.

Continue ReadingSCOTUS: The Function of Free Speech is to Invite Dispute and Stir People to Anger

The Importance of Free Inquiry at the Academy

Heterodox Academy has released this 3-minute video arguing for something that 20 years ago would have puzzled most people.

This video advocates for

  • Free Inquiry at the Academy
  • Encouraging the Life of the Mind, and
  •  The Use of Evidence when taking positions, rather than relying on mere feelings.

But this is 2021, and we are, in many places, continuing our descent into a new Dark Ages where an increasingly acceptable way to win an argument is to silence one's opponents, using economic threats and brute force if necessary, even at the Academy.

I fully support the following ideas of Heterodox Academy:

.

I fully support the above ideas in my role as a law professor and in my personal life. As an attorney affiliated with Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), I am willing to push back against persons and organizations violating these principles where they involve violations of civil rights, including violations of the First Amendment.

In fact, FIRE has now established a Faculty Legal Defense Fund to protect the speech of faculty members.  Here is how it works:

Public college and university faculty who face a threat of sanction by their institution or have been punished for expressive activity—whether it’s instruction, scholarship, or speaking on issues of public concern—can submit matters for FLDF consideration. They can do so through FLDF’s dedicated 24-hour Hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533), or submit a case online. Our staff quickly review the matter and, if it falls within FLDF’s mandate, connect the faculty member with one of the experienced nearby lawyers in the FLDF network for assistance.

Continue ReadingThe Importance of Free Inquiry at the Academy