The United States is Dictating to Facebook What We Can Say to Each Other

The U.S. government is providing a handy new service for us. We no longer need to worry about what to say and think! It is well-established, however, that the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing private companies to censor.

I would like to think that the ACLU will file suit tomorrow to crush this obvious violation of the First Amendment, but I have no confidence that that will happen. And beware: Censorship is a potent narcotic that is difficult for governments to quit. Republicans are undoubtedly licking their chops now, waiting for their chance.

Continue ReadingThe United States is Dictating to Facebook What We Can Say to Each Other

Carl Sagan’s 1997 Prediction

In 1997, Carl Sagan wrote the following in "The Demon Haunted World":

Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren's time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30-second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance. As I write, the number-one videocassette rental in America is the movie Dumb and Dumber. “Beavis and Butthead” remain popular (and influential) with young TV viewers. The plain lesson is that study and learning—not just of science, but of anything—are avoidable, even undesirable.

We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements—transportation, communications, and all other industries; agriculture, medicine, education, entertainment, protecting the environment; and even the key democratic institution of voting—profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.

Continue ReadingCarl Sagan’s 1997 Prediction

Don’t Take the Bait by Arguing About the Proper Meaning of “Critical Race Theory”

Robby Soave makes his case at Reason. First of all, what does Critical Race Theory seem to mean? I've gathered many pronouncements. Soave offers this:

Critical race theory is the idea that structural racism is embedded in many U.S. institutions. Slavery was the reality when the country was founded, and segregation endured for a century following the Civil War. It would thus be naive to assume that supposedly race-neutral policies are actually race-neutral—there's nothing neutral about America and race. Working from this assumption, adherents of critical race theory tend toward a kind of progressive activism that views post-Enlightenment classical liberalism and its notions of equal opportunity, the prioritization of individual rights over group rights, and colorblindness with hostility.
Here's how the bait and switch is playing out, with a money quote by Ibram X. Kendi:

Now that critical race theory is under attack, Kendi has denied being an adherent of it, saying in a statement, "I don't identify as a critical race theorist." MSNBC host Joy Reid used this as a gotcha moment during a segment with Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the foremost anti-CRT activist. But this is semantics: Kendi also told Slate that CRT was "foundational" to his work:

I've certainly been inspired by my critical race theory and critical race theorists, the way in which I've formulated definitions of racism and racist and anti-racism and Antiracist have not only been based on historical sort of evidence, but also Kimberle Crenshaw intersectional theory, which is she's one of the founding and pioneering critical race theorists who in the late 1980s and early 1990s said, you know what, black women aren't just facing racism. They're not just facing sexism. They're facing the intersection of racism and sexism. And it's important for us to understand that. And that's foundational to my work

What should this thing be called? Soave comments:

We could have called this thing intersectionality (my preferred term), or progressive antiracism, or even cultural Marxism (remember that whole debate?), but instead, we're calling it critical race theory. Oh well.

Regardless of what we call it, what is the solution? We should not prohibit the teaching of any idea, only the preaching. That's where many legislative attempts go awry. Soave offers a two-fold solution:

First, foes of critical race theory should spend their time more productively by working to ban racial discrimination in schools. Tinkering with the curriculum is usually a local issue, but states can prohibit race-based hiring and admissions systems. Bar elite public high schools from requiring white and Asian students to score higher on entrance exams, and from segregating students by race. David French is also correct that civil rights law already provides a potential avenue for students to sue school districts that have fostered a racially hostile and discriminatory climate. If the thinking behind "aspects of white supremacy culture" is put into practice in schools, those schools can be sued.

Soave's article is titled: "Critical Race Theory Can't Be Banned. It Can Be Exposed, Mocked, and Avoided: The semantics battle obscures reasonable objections to antiracist diversity seminars."

For more on David French's criticism of most of the legislative attempts to prevent CRT from being "taught" in schools, with which I agree on legal grounds, here is my comment on the conversation involving David French, Christopher Rufo and Bari Weiss.

Continue ReadingDon’t Take the Bait by Arguing About the Proper Meaning of “Critical Race Theory”