Good Intentions to Discuss Complex Issues Sensitively Must Be Punished

One of my biggest concerns these days: We no longer seem capable of civilly discussing even the most important issues with each other. I fear where this might lead us, but I am extremely confident that this is a very bad thing for all of us.

I'm linking to a fascinating article at the intersection of cancellation culture, transgender issues, prominent filmmakers and women's athletics, written by a gay man (Glenn Greenwald), who arrived at the following disheartening conclusion:

My own thinking about the film in light of this controversy surrounding Navratilova seemed to establish that there was no room for Kimberly Reed, as a pioneering trans woman, to produce a nuanced, complex cinematic portrayal of another nuanced, complex LGBT woman pioneer: one that included Navratilova’s heresy on this issue but did not fixate on it or allow it to suffocate everything else that defined her life and who she is. At least, it seemed clear, there was no way in the current climate to produce a nuanced film without spending the rest of our lives being treated the way Reed College students treated Kimberly Peirce when she tried to show and talk about her own groundbreaking film.

Continue ReadingGood Intentions to Discuss Complex Issues Sensitively Must Be Punished

The Day I Received a “D” on my College Paper on “Communism”

Events of the day are reminding me of the day I received a "D" on a college paper. The subject was "Communism."  I was attending the University of Missouri- St. Louis at the time, back in 1977. I was taking a class on "Communism," because I decided that it important to be knowledgeable about a political theory that I often heard about, but didn't understand. The class was taught by three teachers. One of them indicated that she was, in no uncertain terms, "a communist." I was a straight A student at UMSL; I mention this only because it provides context to this story. I should also mention that I enjoyed the class. It stimulated me to think. Reading the actual words of Karl Marx helped me to appreciate that he had genuine passionate concerns for the mistreatment of workers. He worked hard to construct what he believed to be a better political system to protect workers.

The "Communist" teacher assigned a reading and required us to write a paper, which I did. I expressed my concerns that a communist system, though well-intentioned, would not work because it didn't provide some necessary incentives. It was a short paper, about 6 or 7 pages. I received a "D," with the comment that I didn't show that I understood Marx, but I could re-write and re-submit. I decided to re-write. I'm not proud of what I then did, but I fully understand why.  For my re-write I handed in a glowing uncritical tribute to communism. I still have the rewrite and one of my ending sentences was this: "The way of communism, for Marx, presents the opportunity of a better life for the individual and for society as a whole." This same teacher gave me an "A-" on this rewrite, with this comment: Why has no communist society been able to achieve what Marx proposed?" I was tempted to respond: "For that answer see my FIRST paper!" I didn't respond, though. I moved on, tarnished by my intellectual dishonesty.

This turned out to be a formative experience for me. I sometimes think of this bad grade when I hear of students and teachers who are being chilled or reprimanded for asking sincere questions, positing hard-to-hear facts or formulating arguments against any form of orthodoxy or ideology. If we don't allow free speech in classrooms, including the free expression of views that some people consider unpopular or even offensive, we will turn our classrooms into churches. I am well-tuned to detect oppressive religious dogma that parades in intellectual clothing. I spent much of my childhood blunting my well-intentioned father's attempts to save my soul by urging me to say absurd things.  I never gave in, and my upbringing helped to forge me into the analytical and skeptical person that I am. I embrace free speech and critical skepticism as an important way to understand things that confuse me, and I've often stayed the course as others get angry with me instead of discussing facts and opinions that they consider "dangerous." Hence, the name of my website, "Dangerous Intersection." As Carl Sagan wrote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."  Indeed.

The willingness to grapple with threatening ideas is strong good medicine for developing the kinds of human beings who I trust. Uncritically adopting a slogan or a platitude is not the same thing as thinking and doing this should never be tolerated as "education."  It is also important to make sure that everyone speaks up because the otherwise chilled speech might be the majority opinion of the group. Or it might be a small minority opinion which will someday become revered as great wisdom. Once we are well-informed, all of us need to speak up, especially when it seems scary. It's for these reasons that I wrote this post on the classic social science experiments of Soloman Asch: "Why you need to be the one to speak up." It's for this reason that I have been hammering on free speech issues of late.

Continue ReadingThe Day I Received a “D” on my College Paper on “Communism”

National Association of Scholars Pushes Back on Cancel Culture

The National Association of Scholars was founded and funded by conservatives back in 1987, long before Trump hijacked what was left of the traditional conservative movement. Despite its conservative origins and leanings, the Mission Statement of NAS is one that I can generally support. I don't consider myself to be a "conversative" or "liberal."  I consider my positions on each political issue separately, a la carte. Party politics has no bearing on what I think about an issue. I am writing about NAS because I believe it is offering important information and narratives to the public.  In this article, NAS expresses its grave concern that Cancel Culture is chilling speech at the academy, which clashes with what is arguably the prime directive of education.

NAS has taken a strong stance in opposition to Cancel Culture and in favor of open and vigorous discussion of issues at universities. NAS is also compiling a chart of numerous incidents involving teachers who have been disciplined or fired for expressing their opinions (and sometimes for expressing facts) both in the classroom and outside of the classroom.  This list includes summaries of the incidents. I have reviewed independent detailed reports about some of these cases, so that I know that some of the NAS summaries seem fair, but I do not claim to be independently informed about the facts of most of the cases on the list.

All organizations that stand up for the importance of free speech recognize that protected speech is not always easy to protect. For instance consider the position of the ACLU, which famously represented nazis on a free speech in the Skokie case:

Protecting free speech means protecting a free press, the democratic process, diversity of thought, and so much more. The ACLU has worked since 1920 to ensure that freedom of speech is protected for everyone.

It is important to protect speech for the greater long-term good, even when some infringements involve speech that is unpopular, wrong-headed or seemingly deplorable. NAS makes this explicitly clear:

To be sure, some of the aforementioned statements are unsavory and may be worthy of institutional discipline. But the vast majority are not. And yet, woke higher education bureaucrats show an eager willingness to placate the angry students and professors insisting that “justice” be served. Meanwhile, “cancelees” have their professional reputations permanently sullied and, in many cases, ruined.

Here are the stated aims of NAS:

Our Mission The National Association of Scholars upholds the standards of a liberal arts education that fosters intellectual freedom, searches for the truth, and promotes virtuous citizenship.

Our Ideals The standards of a liberal arts education that the NAS upholds include reasoned scholarship and civil debate in America’s colleges and universities; and individual merit in academic and scholarly endeavor. We expect that ideas be judged on their merits; that scholars engage in the disinterested pursuit of the truth; and that colleges and universities provide for fair and judicial examination of contending views.

We expect colleges to offer coherent curricula and programs of study. We uphold a view of institutional integrity that includes financial probity as well as transparency in the curriculum and classroom. We uphold the principles of academic freedom that include faculty members’ and students’ freedom to pursue academic research; their freedom to question and to think for themselves; and their freedom from ideological imposition.

We expect colleges and universities to prioritize education as academia’s main purpose. And we understand education in our time and place to entail providing students with a breadth of understanding of core subjects including Western civilization and American history. We recognize that the vitality of American education arises in large part out of the freedom of colleges and universities to experiment and to offer diverse curricula. That robust diversity, however, must be anchored in respect for the abiding ideals of the pursuit of the truth and the cultivation of virtuous citizenship.

I invite you to Google the facts of some of these cases on the NAS list to see whether you are also concerned that speech is being chilled in classroom such that the overall mission of colleges and universities is being threatened.

Continue ReadingNational Association of Scholars Pushes Back on Cancel Culture

Harper’s Letter on Justice and Open Debate

We are now beginning to hear the other side of a much-needed debate advocating for the need for robust and open debate. Too many careers have already been threatened or ended by a misstep or two on an invisible ever-changing minefield containing far too many untethered and unsustainable ideas. And whatever happened to do unto others? Here is the final paragraph of the Harper's Letter signed by numerous artists, thinkers and writers who fear for the future. The document is titled: "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate":

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Continue ReadingHarper’s Letter on Justice and Open Debate

Dishonest Zealots Attempt to Destroy the Career of Linguist Steven Pinker

Cognitive linguist Steven Pinker has had an illustrious career as a teacher and prolific author. His politics have often leaned to the left. None of this immunizes him from baseless attacks by hundreds of people who apparently don't see any value in Pinker's willingness to contribute his expertise to national conversations on critically relevant issues. They are unwilling to give fair readings to Pinker's statements. They also appear to be threatened by Pinker's use of germane statistics in order to shed light on complex claims involving police behavior and racism.

Here is the opening paragraph of a recent letter signed by almost 500 people, many of them grad students and undergrads, then sent to the Linguistic Society of America:

In reaction to this letter, Jerry Coyne, eminent Professor of Professor of Ecology & Evolution, concludes as follows at his website: "I’m really steamed when a group of misguided zealots tries to damage someone’s career, and does so dishonestly."

Linguist John McWhorter has also indicated his enthusiastic support of Steven Pinker:

Here is Jerry Coyne's full blog post, setting forth the numerous false accusations against Pinker coupled with the evidence clearly demonstrating that these accusations are false. Coyne's post is titled "The Purity Posse pursues Pinker."

I invite you to read both sides of this dispute.  I suspect you will be outraged at the way Pinker is being treated.  You might also wonder how it is that hundreds of people who claim to be highly knowledgeable in linguistics are such inept readers.  The phrase "social conflagration" might come to mind as you review the evidence.  The name Robespierre might periodically pop into your thought process.

Continue ReadingDishonest Zealots Attempt to Destroy the Career of Linguist Steven Pinker