Steven Pinker coined the term Progressophobia as "hostility to the idea of progress and a fondness for narratives of decline, decadence, degeneration, and doom. As I say in the chapter, “Intellectuals hate progress. Intellectuals who call themselves progressive really hate progress." Bill Maher delivers the evidence.
Last month, Andrew Gutmann started speaking out against critical race theory, as it was being taught at his daughter's private expensive Manhattan school, Brearley School. In his letter to the Brearly community, he accused Brearly of teaching children illiberal and indoctrinating antiracism initiatives and divisive obsession with race. Gutmann has founded Speak Up For Education. .
Today, Gutmann authored an opinion piece at The Hill. Here is an excerpt:
There appears to be widespread belief that opposition to critical race theory is a view held solely by the political right. This perception is wrong. It is certainly true that the conservative media has almost exclusively embraced viewpoints unfavorable to critical race theory while the liberal-oriented media has been overwhelmingly approving. But our polarized media does not seem to accurately reflect the view of most Americans.
Since my letter became public, I have received several thousand supportive emails and messages from people across this country, including many from self-described Democrats and liberals. The tone of most of the messages sent to me is not at all political in nature; instead, the tenor is one of desperation and powerlessness.
I have received emails from parents expressing devastation that their kids, as young as five years old, are coming home from school after being taught to feel guilty solely because of the color of their skin. I have received messages from grandparents feeling hopeless that their grandchildren are being brainwashed and turned against their own families. And I have received notes from teachers brought to tears because they are being required, day after day, to teach fundamentally divisive, racist doctrines and being forced to demonize their own students.
Perhaps the most powerful – and most frightening – of the notes I have received are the several dozen from those who identify themselves as having immigrated to America from the former Soviet Union or from countries in formerly communist Eastern Europe. These emails are never political in nature and are nearly identical in message: These first-generation Americans all write that they have “seen this movie before.” They are familiar with the propaganda, the tactics of indoctrination and the pervasive fear of speaking up that plague today’s United States. Simply put, they cannot believe this is happening here.
A friend is quite perturbed at me for (as I view it) not adopting the top-to-bottom progressive platform. The friend found it disturbing that I would get some of my information from sources that the friend considered to be the other team. I told this friend: "You are the 1,000th person to get frustrated with me for wanting to get my facts straight without reference to the prevailing narratives of political tribes. I am prepared to die on this hill."
I am wired to make sense of things as best I can, letting the chips fall, regardless of whether I offend people in the process (with rare exceptions). I was prepared for this way of learning during a childhood where my father force-fed me buckets of religious dogma, resulting in this five-part essay.
I am willing to get useful information from anyone who has information that seems useful. I'm working hard to not divide the world into "good" people and "bad" people. Good people often say untrue things and bad people often say things that make sense. Everyone has a batting average. Everyone is flawed. It is my act of faith that we need to listen to all of it and then pretend that we are emotionally detached Martian anthropologists in order to decide what is accurate. In other words, we need to pay close attention to John Stuart Mill, who is as relevant as ever.
Hence, I reject any Manichean outlook. I fear that our two main political tribes and their respective news silos (amplified by social media) are poisoning our national dialogue. In fact, ruining our national dialogue to the point where, truly, our de facto national motto is getting to be "Fuck e pluribus unum!" It's gotten to the point where people are hating other people for ideas, whereas I think we can hate the idea but must always love the person. I am not religious, but I think that Jesus' "Love your enemy" is one of the most radical, brave and brilliant things ever said.
We need to listen to people that others call the "enemy" because sometimes they are right--sometimes it takes years for it to become apparent that they are correct. I have long been ridiculed for listening "to the enemy." That is, and will forever be, my plight, because the world is complex, not a cartoon, and no tribe has it completely right. We need to actively listen to each other and test each others' claims without feeling like this is a threatening thing to do, in order to make good sense of our world. Without each other, we are all prone to become ideologues who "win" all of our arguments because we refuse to consider competing views (and in fact many of us actively work to muzzle competing views). Hard earned, carefully distilled facts first to prepare the way for meaningful opinions, is the only way to make sense. Whenever we do the opposite, indulging in thinking and opinion-vomiting as a team sport, we are poisoning all dialogue and shutting down human flourishing.
I believe that real conversation (not the pundits barking at each other on CNN, or regular folks on the street, imitating the pundits) will dissolve many of the differences we see in each other. That brings me to an inspiring dialogue I recently heard: a discussion involving Joe Rogan and Glenn Greenwald. This is an odd couple in many ways. At the beginning of the show they both admitted that, in prior years, they weren't each others' favorite people. But they reached out, sat down for three hours and had a riveting conversation that covered many issues, including whistle-blowers, corruption in Brazil, Hunter Biden. My favorite part is where Joe and Glenn discussed the importance of reaching out to people who think differently in order to understand them and to better understand yourself.
Rogan and Greenwald both tout the long-form podcast as one of the best ways to dissolve the pundit-coating that people construct around themselves and to then get down to some interesting conversation--the kind of conversation where people learn interesting things about each other and about themselves. You can be a politician for a short session on FOX or NPR, maybe even 30 or 40 minutes, but you can't hide it for several hours. Rogan mentions that he stumbled upon this powerful revelation because he was too lazy to edit his long podcasts, but then he started to appreciates incredible power of the long-form podcast to reveal who people really are. This conversation between two wide-open complex minds is pure gold, and I invite you to listen to the entire podcast, but especially from 118 min mark to the 140 min mark. You can also read along here (beginning at 2:01:38).
What are the horrible things that tenured Professor Rima Azar stated on her personal blog?
When a local activist named Husoni Raymond opined that New Brunswick is “systemically racist,” Azar applied her comparative understanding of Lebanon and Canada to argue that, in relative terms, her adopted home isn’t racist at all, but is rather “a young country” that “wants to save the world.” (As evidence, she pointed to the fact that Raymond himself had been lavishly honoured for his anti-racism work, which is hardly consistent with white supremacism.) In a similar vein, she has argued down activists who claim Canada is a “patriarchy” afflicted by rape culture. If you want to see “real rape culture,” she’s noted archly, take a look at “ISIS practices in Syria.” Azar also has called Black Lives Matter a “radical” movement, which is an unfashionable thing to say, but isn’t remotely inaccurate given BLM’s stated goals of creating a “global liberation movement” that will “dismantle capitalism,” abolish prisons, and erase national borders.
Who is Professor Azar? Jonathan Kay describes her in a March 2, 2021 post at National Post:
When Azar eventually immigrated to Canada, she developed expertise in helping parents who face complex child-care needs, and has gone on to found or supervise numerous acclaimed support programs in New Brunswick. In her personal life, Azar is a foster parent, a polyglot (Arabic is her mother tongue), and a blogger who writes passionately about classical liberal values and Lebanon’s ongoing challenges. She’s also a proud Canadian — writing that the Maple Leaf “means the world to me,” even while still being “moved” by the sight of a Lebanese flag. If you know of a more intersectional Canadian, I’d like to meet them.
Professor Azar has now been suspended by her University. Because she dares to express her own thoughts, she will also be required to take equity, diversity and inclusion training. On her blog she mentions that she has set up a GoFundMe account to pay for her legal defense. She states:
I now have been suspended from my job without pay, based on false allegations. We are in a pandemic and times are tough on all. This is why your support means the world to me. I am so grateful for my union’s continuous support in dealing with Mount Allison University. However, the reputational damage already done (defamation, attack to my character) has implications beyond my employer and workplace. I will use the funds raised to cover my personal legal defence fund. I love my students, job, colleagues, university, province, and beautiful country beyond words. My story is beyond academic freedom. I precisely chose to move to Canada for democracy/freedom of expression. Why are we doing this to ourselves?
I'd like to be the fly on the wall at the $54K/year Grace Church School in Manhattan. I want to know if there has been any meaningful discussion at the school now that, Paul Rossi, the math teacher who raised concerns last week, has been told to stay home because of "safety" concerns. And now, Andrew Gutmann, one of the parents at the school has spoken up in a big way.
The critical race theory indoctrination is thick at the school, where Gutmann has now pulled his daughter out of the school to protect her. Gutmann gave the school a huge gift on his way out: a 1700-word mass mailing to the other parents (reprinted in its entirety by Bari Weiss) describing in great detail his concerns with the school's intense obsession with the poisons of Wokeness.
As shown by this excerpt from the school's response, however, words and ideas are now allegedly the same thing as "violence" to the students--real conversation and the airing of differences are forbidden by the intense Wokeness training. I can't think of a better way for the school to admit that Woke ideology withers when confronted with real facts and real discussion.
The extent of the damage being done to the students is on display in the mass mailing sent by Jane Foley Fried, the Head of the Brearley School (the letter is reproduced in the article). An excerpt:
Jane Fried, Brearley's head of school, sent a message to the school's families on Friday in which she slammed Gutmann's letter as 'deeply offensive and harmful.''This afternoon, I and others who work closely with Upper School students met with more than one hundred of them, many of whom told us that they felt frightened and intimidated by the letter and the fact that it was sent directly to our homes,' Fried wrote.
'Our students noted that as this letter, which denies the presence of systemic racism, crossed their doorways, the evidence of ongoing racism – systemic or otherwise – is daily present in our headlines.'
But Gutmann claims that Brearley students should not be 'frightened' by receiving a letter at their homes.
'The upper schoolers are afraid of getting a letter at their home?' Gutmann said Saturday.
'They're frightened and intimidated? The school has said it's number one priority is to teach the girls intellectual bravery and courageousness. Either they are lying or else they have done an atrocious job.'