Peter Boghossian: Don’t Mistake Criticism of Ideas for Harassment of People

Professor Peter Boghossian of Portland State has been called a "bully" and accused of harassment by a colleague, Dr. Jennifer Ruth, professor of film studies and vice president of grievances and academic freedom at Portland State University. Ruth set forth her accusations in a paywalled article published by the Chronicle of Higher Education. Boghossian recently responded with a detailed letter to the editor at the same publication. Boghossian's response takes aim at a set of recurring problems, all of them related to Woke Ideology. These problems are currently exploding into view at many American universities. I am quoting Boghossian at length because his letter succinctly identifies Ruth's hypocrisy--her unwillingness to subject her ideas to meaningful criticism in a meaningfully public venue.

As Boghossian points out, this dispute exhibits multiple iterations of ironic hypocrisy in that the topic of Ruth's alleged distress is that she should be able to attack people and ideas, face no meaningful pushback, at an institution dedicated to dissecting and critiquing ideas, at which she serves as a VP of "grievances."  And she has chosen to protect her original accusations against Boghossian (and is colleague, Dr. Bruce Gilley) behind a paywalled article. Gilley has written his own response here. Intellectual dysfunction doesn't get any better than this.  Boghossian does a great job of setting forth some basic principles common sense at his publicly available article:

By claiming that criticism of published ideas and pedagogical models is harassment, and by creating institutional mechanisms that erect barriers to wholly appropriate critique, entire lines of scholarship become exempt from scrutiny. The academic process depends on having the freedom not only to state ideas but also to criticize other ideas. Limiting criticism in academia is tantamount to telling potters they can make all the clay pots they want so long as they never use clay. This is particularly disturbing because the claims in question — almost always about race, gender, and sexual orientation — are presented as knowledge and then used to influence public policy.

It is worth noting that criticism is framed as harassment only by academicians working in certain domains of thought that are in Critical Theory’s orbit. Civil engineers are not claiming that criticism of truss bridge design is harassment. Physicists are not claiming they’re being persecuted when their contributions to quantum theory are criticized. Philosophers are not claiming victimization when their arguments about free will are scrutinized. Claiming criticism is harassment occurs when a discipline’s North Star is not Truth, but ideology.

The internal rationale for calling criticism “harassment” is as simple as it is absurd: because these Critical Theories are believed to proceed from one’s “social position” as an occupant of some “identity category,” the person and her ideas are treated as though they overlap. They do not. Thinking they do is a dangerous mistake for anyone to make, not least institutions that are nominally devoted to Truth. The backbone of rational thought is separating people from ideas to protect the dignity of the former while being free to criticize the latter. . .

One reason I use Twitter is to inform the public of what is going on in university classrooms and in what counts these days as academic scholarship. Academics who disagree with my ideas also frequently criticize them on Twitter. This is of value for nonacademic onlookers who can compare our arguments. Extramural criticism is one of the few avenues left now that academic journals have become echo chambers that reinforce and promote specific ideological lenses. . .

There’s a dual irony in Ruth’s accusations. First, if there’s an institutionalized rule that criticism of academic work is harassment, how would Critical Theory, which is entirely predicated on criticizing existing systems, have emerged? It would not have.

For yet other perspectives on this dispute at Portland State, consider this article at DI and this article by Bruce Gilley: Silenced by the Sheep: Academia’s New Censorship.

Continue ReadingPeter Boghossian: Don’t Mistake Criticism of Ideas for Harassment of People

Forty Black Intellectuals Chastise Smith College

Here are a few excerpts from today's well-deserved letter to Smith College, signed by 40 Black intellectuals:

"We, the undersigned, are writing as Black Americans to express our outrage at the treatment of the service workers of Smith College in light of the incident of alleged racial profiling that occurred in the summer of 2018.

Before investigating the facts, Smith College assumed that every one of the people who prepare its food and clean its facilities was guilty of the vile sin of racism and forced them to publicly "cleanse" themselves through a series of humiliating exercises in order to keep their jobs. When an investigation of the precipitating incident revealed no evidence of bias, Smith College offered no public apology to the falsely accused and merely doubled down on the shaming of its most vulnerable employees.

Many of us participated in the Civil Rights Movement, fighting for equal treatment under the law, which included due process and the presumption of innocence. We didn't march so that Americans of any race could be presumed guilt and punished for false accusations while the elite institution that employed them cowered in fear of a social media mob. We certainly didn't march so that privileged Blacks could abuse Working class Whites based on "lived experience."

. . .

Please consider that many Black Americans find training that reduces us simply to a racial category profoundly condescending and dehumanizing. Not only do such activities often increase racial animosity rather than reduce it, but they also deeply harm students of color by teaching them to process every one of life's difficulties through the lens of race.

. . .

We implore you to rethink how you have handled this situation. We ask that you publicly apologize to the falsely accused service workers, that you cease forced, accusatory 'anti-bias´ training, and that you compensate your service workers for the harm that you have caused them."

Continue ReadingForty Black Intellectuals Chastise Smith College

Counterweight: New Organization Helps Individuals Fend Off Impositions of Critical Race Theory

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?

Continue ReadingCounterweight: New Organization Helps Individuals Fend Off Impositions of Critical Race Theory

The Book that Must Never be Mentioned According to Amazon: When Harry Became Sally

Amazon sells most of the books sold in the U.S. This includes 72% of all adult new book sales online and 80% of ebook sales. With great power comes great responsibility, though. Amazon has now taken the brazen step of stopping all sales of Ryan Anderson's book on gender dysphoria, When Harry Became Sally, falsely characterizing it in the process. You cannot find Anderson's book mentioned anywhere on Amazon's website.  Here's a few things that have recently come to light.

First, a March 16, 2021 article in the Wall Street Journal titled, "Amazon Won’t Let You Read My BookAn enterprising state attorney general might want to look into why it was withdrawn from sale now." Here's an excerpt:

In a letter last week to four U.S. Senators, Amazon justified its decision to delist “When Harry Became Sally” by claiming it frames “LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness.” This recycled charge is as false now as when Mr. Bezos’ newspaper first made it.

.   .   .

Why would Amazon exercise its unrivaled market power to banish my book? Because the book is changing minds in a continuing debate about how best to help patients who experience gender dysphoria. “When Harry Became Sally” has been praised by medical and legal experts—and that’s what makes it unacceptable to the woke.

And, indeed, the false "mental illness" allegation was made by the Washington Post, then retracted (and the headline of the hit piece was rewritten) after the Post was unable to produce any evidence for that claim.

Here is an excerpt from the the website of the books publisher, Encounter Books:

Everyone agrees that gender dysphoria is a serious condition that causes great suffering. There is a debate, however, which Amazon is seeking to shut down, about how best to treat patients who experience gender dysphoria. When Harry Became Sally is an important contribution, praised by medical experts, to that conversation.

No good comes from shutting down a debate about important matters on which reasonable people of good will disagree. Amazon is using its massive power to distort the marketplace of ideas and is deceiving its own customers in the process.

—Ryan T. Anderson, author When Harry Became Sally and Roger Kimball, Publisher, Encounter Books

Encounter then indicates why Amazon's conduct should matter to all of us, linking to Amazon's own statement for why it refuses to sell Anderson's book:

Encounter Books is committed to publishing authors with differing views on a wide range of issues of public concern. We do this because a free society requires robust debate and spaces where dissenting opinions can be expressed unimpeded.

If Amazon, which controls most of the book sales in America, has decided to delist a book with which some of its functionaries disagree, that is an unconscionable assault on free speech. It will have a chilling effect on the publishing industry and the free circulation of ideas. It must not be left to stand unchallenged.

Note: Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and the Founding Editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, New Jersey.  I would like to read Anderson's book for myself, so I have ordered it from Encounter Books.  I would assume that a lot of people would like to decide for themselves, rather than allow Amazon to dictate what they should be reading.

There is also a bit of personal context for my grave concerns about Amazon decision to censor us.  None of us should be subjected to any form of a Nanny-State.  After the Suess uproar, Amazon dictated that I could not have a book that I had previously purchased from Amazon: And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street.  I wanted to see that book for myself to determine whether it was inappropriate. It is not for any other person or entity to tell me what ideas are appropriate for me.  Here is Amazon's cancellation email for the Suess book. 

Continue ReadingThe Book that Must Never be Mentioned According to Amazon: When Harry Became Sally