[Note from Erich Vieth: Welcome to Bill Heath, our newest author at DI]
Greetings. I am, indeed, Bill Heath. I graduated Frostburg State University in 1970. I enjoyed the atmosphere of free exchange of ideas that the University promoted at the time. I have recently read the policy on posting at Lane University Center, and am disturbed. It appears unclear and and subject to abuse through capricious and arbitrary use. Specifically, " Postings that are deemed offensive, and/or that promote alcohol use, abuse, sale or distribution, will not be approved and are not permitted to be posted on LUC bulletin boards, with the exception of events approved by the University."
I have no problem with barring the alcohol-related content, nor the exception of University-approved events. I have a significant problem with "deemed offensive." The immediate questions are by whom, to whom, and under what standards?
I give a pass to postings and conduct that use a "reasonable person" standard, although I would prefer a "reasonable and prudent person" standard as that is better-defined in case law.
Under harassment policies, "Verbal/Written Assault includes verbal or written acts, including social media sites, which place a person in personal fear or which have the effect of harassing or intimidating a person...." authorizes the individual who believes he or she was offended, harassed or intimidated to set the standard, leaving the accused in a position of needing to prove his or her innocence. That policy cannot be reconciled with the University I attended, nor with my understanding of English Common Law and the U.S. legal practices descended from it. In short, without a revived office of the advocatus diaboli, or a Red Team with official sanction, the standards are clearly unconstitutional within a government entity such as FSU.A statement of policy is unlikely to be sufficient. Rather, action to affirm that the accuser's rights are not unlimited, nor are the accused's rights to be infringed.
I describe this example of a modern attempt to control speech to illustrate a wide and growing problem. For many additional examples courtesy of an organization that is willing to bring lawsuits against colleges and universities with over broad speech codes, see the website of FIRE, FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN EDUCATION.
The concept of using "race"--physical appearance--as a proxy for character is as absurd as astrology. I'm well aware that people look different from each other, but the concept of "race" is scientifically baseless. The concept of "race" embraces the logic of astrology: shoving individual people (each of whom is complex) into a handful of simplistic superficial categories and then drawing conclusions that are evidence-free (or often, contrary to evidence) based upon these unwarranted simplistic cartoon-like categorizations. The concept of "race" should be constantly ridiculed the same way that intelligent people ridicule astrology. Any attempt to classify another human being by "race" or birthdate is a lazy ham-handed anti-scientific and pernicious claim that one knows what it is impossible to know--the complexity of that human being--without investing time and effort to get to known them. That is the point of Morgan Freeman:
This enormous flaw with the modern use of the concept of "race" is a conceptual hole so vast that one could easily drive a truck through it. Yet the concept of "race" is rarely attacked at the root. The first racist act is categorizing people by dividing them into simplistic categories such as white or Black. Without this first move, racism would be impossible. What is especially distressing is that this widespread exuberant willingness to mis-categorize people into simplistic categories is embraced by both White Supremacists and those who claim to be seeking social justice by embracing critical race theory. These two groups are now in complete agreement that we can somehow know people merely by looking at their physical appearance.
There is only one way to get to know a person, and that is to take the time to learn about them, one by one, by talking with them, getting to know what they've done with their lives, reading about them or watching them interact with others. Complicating things, people change over time, so getting to know who they are requires non-stop effort. Getting to know someone else requires careful consideration of real world facts and this takes considerable and concerted effort. Taking the time to get to really know other people before casting judgment on who they are is incompatible with making snap judgments but, as we are increasingly being tuned by social media, we are increasingly people who insist on making snap judgments.
Every day, "race" arguments wildly launch off into a thousand directions like fireworks. The basic premise of most of these arguments is the incoherent concept of "race," a concept so completely and irrevocably broken that most of these discussions are a waste of time before the discussion even begins. Imagine the time we could save--time we could redirect to working on solving the immense social problems that are very real indeed (many of them correlated to the physical appearance of groups of people)--if only we cut off most discussions of "race" at the root by calling out the invalidity of the concept of "race."
I will be writing more on this emotionally-charged topic in coming months. At this point I should make two things clear.
A) As I hope I've made clear, "race" is a irretrievably flawed pernicious concept. I believe that the concept of "race" should be thrown in the dustbin of history and we should all enter a new post-racial era. Unfortunately, other people continue to believe in the reality of "race." This idiotic willingness to divide complex people into simple colors makes racism possible. For this reason, I fully acknowledge the existence and destructiveness of racism. Many people mistreat others based upon physical appearance. To do this is unfair. It hurts people, sometimes badly, sometimes leading to deaths. Racism oppresses entire groups of people and has done so systematically over long stretches of time, through the entire history of the United States and many other places. Wherever we encounter racism, we should attack it vigorously in two ways: socially (by calling it out publicly and condemning those who mistreat other people in this way) and through the use of the legal system (e.g., through civil rights laws).
B) The concept of "race" itself is bad science, and this problem needs to be pointed out whenever discussing racism. Every single time. Even young children know that "race" makes no sense but we socialize them to think otherwise. To fail to point out the absurdity of the concept of "race" whenever discussing racism will lead to more of the same. We will never be able to solve the "race" problem as long as we assume that there is such a thing as "race." One way to do this is to consistently put the word "race" in scare quotes, which is now my habit. Every time we discuss "race," we need to call out that the the casual, unthinking idea that there is such a thing as "race" is reckless and dangerous. We need to constantly call out that it is impossible and destructive to judge other people by the use of immutable physical appearance. It is, indeed, as insane as believing in astrology, phrenology or palm reading. The unthinking use of the word "race" is utterly unscientific and destructive, even when used by well-intentioned people. The concept of "race" is a mental virus that hurts people and most of those who are infected are unable to see that they are infected. To use "race" uncritically (or "critically," as is de rigeour among the Woke) is to succumb to the banality of evil--unthinking destructive acquiescence to bad ideas.
In sum, racism exists because millions of misguided people believe in the incoherent and unsubstantiated notion of "race." It will take great effort to break this bad habit because many well-meaning people who are (oftentimes heroically) fighting racism refuse to jettison the concept of "race." Until large vocal swaths of society simultaneously and consciously embrace both A and B (above), racism will tear us apart. I'm not optimistic.
I've followed Social Psychologist Jonathan Haidt closely for many years (as you can see by searching for his name at DI). He is the author of several excellent books, including The Happiness Hypothesis, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion and The Coddling of the American Mind. Haidt's thought process crosscuts the prevailing two wings of political thought in the United States. In this extended interview with Joe Rogan, Haidt dissects many topics, including identity politics. He urges that this phrase encompasses two separate approaches, "Common Enemy Politics" and "Common Humanity."
Haidt also distinguishes between two prevalent types of conversations, two types of "games" being played that often make conversations frustrating. Many of us insist upon playing the "truth seeking game," while others play a game that assumes a Manichean battle where A) no one gains except at the expense of someone else, B) where people are not seen as individuals but a members of groups, and C) you can tell who someone is merely by their appearance. Much of the fruitless dialogue on social media and elsewhere makes a lot more sense once we realize that these two approaches have virtually nothing in common--they serve entirely different purposes. Just because we exchange words does not mean we are, in any meaningful way, communicating.
In addition to embedding the video of the interview, I invested some time to create a transcript of several sections of this interview, from about Min. 33 - 55. I have cleaned up the wording to omit throat-clearings and false starts, but I have worked hard to be true to the substance of the conversation.
33:18
JH: You have to look at different games being played. Yale was a place that taught me to think in lots of different ways and it was constantly blowing my mind when I took my first economics course. It was like wow, here's a new pair of spectacles that I can put on and suddenly I see all these prices and supply. I never learned to think that way, where I learned about Freud in psychology or sociology. A good education is one that lets you look at our complicated world through multiple perspectives. That makes you smart. That's what a liberal arts education should do. But what I see increasingly happening, especially at elite schools, is the dominance of a single story, and that single story is life is a battle between good people and evil people, or rather good groups and evil groups, and it's a zero-sum game. So if the bad groups have more, it's because they took it from the good groups, so the point of everything is to fight the bad groups. Bring them down create equality and this is a terrible way to think in a free society. That might have worked you know in biblical days when you got the Moabites killing the Jebusites or whatever, but you know we live in an era in which we've discovered that that the pie can be grown a million-fold. So to teach students to see society as a zero-sum competition between groups is primitive and destructive.
34:22
JR: In your book, you actually identify the moment where these micro aggressions made their appearance and they were initially a racist thing.
JH: Yeah. The idea of a micro aggression really becomes popular in a 2007 article by Derald Wing Sue at Teachers College. He talks about this concept of microaggressions. There are two things that are good about the concept, that are useful. One is that explicit racism has clearly gone down--by any measure explicit racism is plummeted in American across the West—but there could still be subtle or veiled a racism.
37:27
JR It's ultimately for everyone's sake, I mean, even for the sake of the people that are embroiled in all this controversy and chaos. It would be fantastic across the board if there was no more sexism, there was no more racism, there was no more any of these things. It would be wonderful. Then we could just start treating humans as just humans. Like this is just who you are you're just a person. No one cares. What a wonderful world we would live in if this was no longer an issue at all.
JH: Beautifully put.
JR: How does that get through?
38:01
JH: We were getting there, okay? That's what the twentieth century was. We were shaped by the late 20th century. The late 20th century was a time in America in which, you know, earlier on there was all kinds of prejudice. I mean, when I was born, just right before you were born, it was legal to say you can't eat here because you're Black and so that changed in 1964-65. But it used to be that we had legal differentiations by race and then those were knocked down. But we still had social [discrimination] and it used to be that if you were gay that was something humiliating. It had to be hidden. If you look at where we were in 1960 or ’63, when I was born and then you look at where we got by 2000, the progress is fantastic on every front, so that's all I mean when I say we were moving in that direction.
A recent Tweet by evolutionary biologist Geoffrey Miller, reminiscent of J.K. Rowling's famous "people who menstruate" Tweet:
I thought the whole point of public health communication was to communicate clearly to ordinary people, including young people -- many of whom don't really know what a cervix is, where it is, or who had one. Just say 'women'. https://t.co/KiqBqaj7D4
I posted this on FB. It drew the following response from Emily Lemonds:
There are men who have cervices and there are women who don’t. There are people who do not identify as men or women who have them. They do not deserve to have their existence erased for purposes of linguistic laziness.
My Response:
That is such a melodramatic and groundless accusation, that anyone is causing anyone else to "have their existence erased" by using a perfectly useful word so deeply rooted in biology and history! Your accusation, as I see it, is a completely unhinged metaphor suggesting physical injury where there is absolutely none (though there might be frustration). No one would be physically or emotionally injured if the CNN announcement used the word "women." I also disagree with you about who is being linguistically lazy. If you take a random survey of 1,000 people who have cervices whether they consider themselves to be "women," you'll prove my case. I believe in continuing to allow each of those people who has a cervix to feel free to use the word "women" A) to refer to themselves and B) to capture the narratives of their lives, guilt-free. The 99+% of women who have cervices did not start this linguistic territorial war.
A person named Robert Pedroli then commented:
Cervical cancer screenings are recommended to start .... This is how to say it. Eric then you don’t need to get riled up about this.
My response:
I stand up to protect people who are being bullied. That's the way I'm wired. Do you really think it's rude to use the word "woman" to refer to people with cervices? I should make clear that I have no problem with anyone (with any permutation of sexual organs) referring to themselves as a "woman." If a person with a penis wants me to call them a "woman" I will happily do so.
John McWhorter's Lexicon Valley has been one of my favorite podcasts for several years. His general topic is linguistics and McWhorter makes it all educational, humorous and even musical. This is McWhorter's side gig. For his day job, he is a professor of English at Columbia University.
In this particular episode, McWhorter takes a look the origin and meaning of some of the words and phrases we use to discuss today's racial reckoning, words and phrases such as "Black," "white," [capitalizations are intentional] "defund," "Black Lives Matter" and "Karen." If you haven't yet experienced Lexicon Valley, this episode is a timely one: "Defund Karen: On the insults, acronyms, and sloganeering of America’s racial reckoning."
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.