One of my favorite writers, Helen Pluckrose, is one of the founders of a promising new organization called Counterweight. The mission is to help individuals resist the imposition of Critical Social Justice (CSJ) in their day to day lives. Here's one of the organization's first Tweets: What is wrong with anti-racism training that's based on Critical Race Theory?
In my work as an attorney I often encounter opposing attorneys who object to my written questions (interrogatories), insisting that they are "vague." Opponents often make these objections in an attempt to avoid answering my questions or to slow down the progress of the lawsuit. I remind my law students that they will often encounter this unfortunate behavior when they graduate. When it is convenient for them, the people we communicate with often give us the least charitable readings of our words. This common occurrence is one of my least favorite parts of being an attorney. It eats up a lot of time and money trying to force motivated opponents to acknowledge common and ordinary meanings of words.
This isn't just a problem for attorneys. Whenever any of us communicate, the attitude of the other person often determines whether we will get a responsive answer or no meaningful answer. Word meanings can easily be bent and twisted and it often happens when there is no ill-intent. Consider too the existence of contronyms, words that have some opposite or contradictory meanings, such as "bolt," "dust" or "out."
There is also a fun side to unreasonable misunderstandings. It can make for good comedy. Here's an example from Monty Python's "Holy Grail":
One of the most entertaining uses of intentional misunderstanding is found in the work of photoshop artist James Fridman. Many people send James requests to improve their photos and James intentionally misunderstands their requests. Over and over. Here are a few examples of Fridman's work:
and here . . .
Check out many more examples of Fridman's work here.
To what extent can the government prosecute lies? First Amendment Law Professor Eugene Volokh has written an excellent article considering many angles. Here's an excerpt:
Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has never resolved the question. It hasn’t resolved the big-picture question: When can the government punish lies? It hasn’t resolved the medium-size question: Can the government punish lies in election campaigns? And it hasn’t resolved the particular question: Can the government punish lies about the mechanisms of voting, and in particular about how to vote?
[T]he court considered the case of Xavier Alvarez, a local government official in an LA suburb; he had lied about getting the Congressional Medal of Honor, and was prosecuted under the Stolen Valor Act, a statute that bans such lies about military decorations. Unconstitutional, six justices said. There was broad agreement that “Laws restricting false statements about philosophy, religion, history, the social sciences, the arts, and other matters of public concern … would present a grave and unacceptable danger of suppressing truthful speech.” “The point is not that there is no such thing as truth or falsity in these areas or that the truth is always impossible to ascertain, but rather that it is perilous to permit the state to be the arbiter of truth.” (That’s from the dissent, but the concurrence endorsed it, and the plurality’s opinion was even more speech-protective than the others.)
Yet when it came to more specific lies, whether about one’s own medals or something else, there was no majority opinion.
Portland State University Professor Peter Boghossian has linked to a video that warns of actions by Portland State University to hide a public PSU video in which outrageous actions of censorship are being proposed by employees of PSU, including professors. Those proposed outrageous actions are described here in writing. Here's an excerpt from this written report:
The resolution then makes a series of sleights of hand, describing the sharing and commentary on the course slides in various dark tones, using words like “intimidation.” For example: “When faculty become active in, or even endorse or tacitly support, public campaigns calling for the intimidation of individual colleagues they disagree with, or with an entire faculty they disagree with, they are undermining academic freedom.” Thus, in a single sentence, the resolution imposes a gag order on criticisms of a university’s professors, programs, teaching, and research - - criticism which is itself the heart of academic freedom -- as an abuse of academic freedom. The resolution then affirms the new description of normal criticism as “bullying” and “cynical abuse” stating: “As Faculty, we must be thoughtful in our exercise of academic freedom and guard against its cynical abuse that can take the form of bullying and intimidation.”
The resolution, in redefining normal debate and criticism, as acts of “intimidation” and “bullying”, falls afoul not just of common sense but of constitutional protections and normal workplace employment law, especially for a public university where faculty governance and academic freedom are core principles subject to state laws. Nor does it contemplate the implications the resolution would have if applied to Woke Studies professors who regularly engage in such “intimidation” of their unWoke colleagues.
The resolution was presented for discussion and approval at a Portland State faculty senate meeting of March 1, 2021. Even by the standards of the contemporary academy, the live- streaming faculty senate “debate” on the resolution was notable in making painfully clear the disappearance of viewpoint diversity on campus and the emergence of a new racial justice activism animating taxpayer-funded universities. The meeting was live-streamed and then uploaded for public viewing on YouTube (the relevant half-hour section is from minutes 34:25 to 1:03:25).
Boghossian ends his Tweet by pointing to yesterday's video created by Aaron Kindsvatter, the most recent college professor to blow the whistle on oppressive Woke policies imposed by an American university (University of Vermont). It is impossible to overlook the similarity of Kindsvatter's complaints to the complaints of Jodi Shaw, who has been forced out of Smith College due to the hostile work environment Shaw experienced at Smith.
Boghossian ends his Tweet thread with this comment: "Soon there will be dozens of these, then hundreds, then thousands."
I agree. The tide is starting to turn.
Professor Aaron Kindsvatter created this YouTube video to share his concerns about Woke ideology spreading across campus at the University of Vermont, where he works. He is not convinced that the way to fight racism is with more racism. Making this video was outside of Kindsvatter's comfort zone, as you can see when you watch the video. The points he is raising are common sense, however, which is why critical race advocates refuse to expose their ideology to public debate.
Have you had enough of this Woke bullshit yet? Where are you going to draw your line? When will you stop giving ground and announce "Enough"? We're starting to turn this ship around. It's time for all kind-hearted thoughtful people to stand up and be counted.