Ben Franklin: It’s “a Republic, if you can keep it.”

On September 17, 1787, as delegates left the Constitutional Convention in Independence Hall, Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government do we have?

"A Republic," he replied, "if you can keep it."

I am stunned at the willingness of many on the political left to ignore the First Amendment out of convenience when it comes to their favorite issues. As I predicted several days ago, the ACLU has been silent. Many of us who used to fear government censorship are publicly warming up to that idea.  In recent days, Glenn Greenwald has commented repeatedly. For example:

Those who remember the recent past the federal government be able to declare and enforce its version of the "truth" re COVID.  Here's a few examples:

There is apparently something in the water that is causing Americans to become obtuse, unable to understand their own history, their own government and nuance. Many people who hear my opinions of these topics accuse me of liking it when malevolent and stupid people kill other people by spreading lies about COVID.  They think I like it when harmful false ideas are spread through social media. Many of them are proud Americans who wave flags and celebrate the Fourth of July, but they don't understand the function and power of the First Amendment and free speech (the latter of which is a broader issue). It's as though they don't understand that many truths are complex, making them unendingly imperfect and tentative. It's as though they don't understand that by allowing the marketplace of ideas to run its course, we will be in the best position to understand what is going on around us on every topic and every issue. It's as though they want to completely trust a government that excels in spewing out lies, year after year, administration after administration.

Is it too much to ask that Americans understand their own Constitution before willingly shredding parts of it?

Continue ReadingBen Franklin: It’s “a Republic, if you can keep it.”

Ed Snowden Talks Shop with Daniel Ellsberg

Ed Snowden invited Daniel Ellsberg to have a conversation. These two men who are heroes to me (and to each other), discuss the importance of whistle-blowers, free speech and the war powers of the United States. Ellsberg points out (at min 8) that he did not disclose the Pentagon Papers because the government was lying or because the Vietnam war wasn't winnable. Almost everyone knew these things at that time. He did it because the war was "wrong" and it was "getting bigger," at a time where Nixon knew that he might be drawing the Chinese into the war and he was considering the use of nuclear weapons.

At minute 12, Ed Snowden explains that he acted not because he was against spying (though he was against spying), but because the government was acting outside of the knowledge and control of the People. The government was reinterpreting the Constitution outside of the knowledge of the People (and outside of the knowledge of most members of Congress) in a "secret rubber-stamp court." The People were no longer "partner" with the government, but "subjects" of the government. Snowden continued, from Bush to Obama to Trump, "the government is becoming less accountable to the People, and the people are becoming more accountable to the government."

Continue ReadingEd Snowden Talks Shop with Daniel Ellsberg

Why We Need to Re-Teach the Importance of Free Speech to Each Generation

Jonathan Rauch, author of The Constitution of Knowledge, discussing free speech with Andrew Sullivan:

Books like mine, I hope, and work like yours [Sullivan's], will sound the alarm and show the way out, show that our arguments are strong, that pluralism is really the only path to a peaceful, productive and knowledgeable society. What the purists have to argue is only eternal warfare, in which arguments are not resolved. And the casualties are either physical human bodies, or ostracism, or ignorance, or chilling.

Even if we don't win that argument right now, I keep pointing out to people: Remember the notions of free speech and free thought and all the rigors of science? These things are profoundly counterintuitive. The idea that speech is blasphemous, heretical, wrongheaded, offensive--add your adjectives--that speech is like that? That ideas like that should not only be allowed, but affirmatively protected, is the strangest and weirdest, and probably the craziest social idea that was ever invented. And it's only rescued by the fact that it's also the most successful social idea that was ever invented by a country mile. I would argue that it put an end to the creed wars. It gave us knowledge. It gave us finally some peace. And the result of that counter-intuitiveness is that you and I and our children, metaphorically, and our grandchildren and their grandchildren, will have to get up every morning and defend these ideas from scratch against a new generation that, for whatever new reason, emotional safety-ism or critical race theory or something else, that they don't get it. And we just have to be cheerful about that because, historically speaking, we've done incredibly well for about two and a half centuries. This is a template in the history of the human species.

Continue ReadingWhy We Need to Re-Teach the Importance of Free Speech to Each Generation

What the Opponents of “Critical Race Theory” are Most Concerned About. What Teachers Should be Teaching Instead of CRT.

What are people (I'm included) concerned about when we talk about "critical race theory" being taught in the classroom, especially K-12? What should we be teaching instead of "CRT"? Greg Lukianoff of FIRE nails it:

What these bills are trying to address doesn’t map directly to the academic definition of critical race theory, which is, in short, an academic school of thought pioneered by Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Mari Matsuda, and Richard Delgado (among others) that holds that social problems, structures, and art should be examined for their racial elements and impact on race, even when they are race-neutral on their face.

As a result, a lot of arguments dismiss the bills by claiming “they don’t teach critical race theory in K-12!”, pointing to the fact that Bell’s work is on few, if any, K-12 syllabi. But that is a refutation of a point no one is actually making.

Like it or not, the acronym “CRT” as commonly used in 2021 doesn’t refer to the foundational texts and authors in the academic movement. It’s a shorthand for certain ideas that have filtered (in reductive forms or not) from CRT thinkers into the mainstream, including in bestselling books like “White Fragility” and “How to Be an Antiracist” — ideas like how relationships between individual white and nonwhite people are those of the oppressor and oppressed, that all white people are consciously or unconsciously racist, that ostensibly raceblind concepts like “meritocracy” are the result of white supremacy, among others.

. . .

What opponents of “CRT” are getting at is a philosophy that comes directly in conflict with small-L liberalism — and I am among the many Americans who believe the ideals of small-L liberalism are worth defending. What critics of CRT fear is the rise and widespread adoption of a philosophy that relies on genetic essentialism, overgeneralization, guilt by association, what we call in Coddling “The Great Untruth of Us versus Them,” shame and guilt tactics, and deindividuation. This is a formula for reinforcing group difference, undermining the hope of future social cohesion, and returning to the kind of tribal politics of the country in which my father grew up: Yugoslavia.

What should we be doing instead of preaching K-12? Lukianoff has some ideas on that topic too. His article is titled: "The Empowering of the American Mind: We need to fix K-12 education. These 10 principles are a path for reform.". Here are some excerpts from Lukianoff's article:

Principle 1: No compelled speech, thought, or belief.

Principle 2: Respect for individuality, dissent, and the sanctity of conscience.

Principle 3: Foster the broadest possible curiosity, critical thinking skills, and discomfort with certainty.

Principle 4: Demonstrate epistemic humility at all levels of teaching and policymaking.

Principle 5: Foster independence, not moral dependency.

Principle 6: Do not teach children to think in cognitive distortions, e.g.:

Emotional reasoning

Catastrophizing

Overgeneralizing

Dichotomous thinking

Mind-reading

Labeling

Negative filtering

Discounting positives

Blaming

Principle 7: Do not teach the “Three Great Untruths.”

As a society, we are teaching a generation three manifestly bad overarching “untruths”—ideas that contradict both ancient wisdom and modern psychology:

The Untruth of Fragility: What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker.

The Untruth of Emotional Reasoning: Always trust your feelings.

The Untruth of Us Versus Them: Life is a battle between good and evil people.

Principle 8: Take student mental health more seriously.

This brings me to the most frustrating thing I’ve seen since publishing the original “Coddling” article. We know anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide are up among young people, and up dramatically. In light of this fact, it is cruel to nevertheless advocate political philosophies that assume:

The majority of students are both oppressors and oppressed due to the color of their skin, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic status, and/or national origin, and that therefore not only is life rigged against such students, they are also active participants in harming other students;

Words, arguments, and images can be so harmful that students must be shielded from many of them in order to prevent serious psychological harm;

Some students are in a war against oppression, where they don’t have friends but rather “allies”—which implies a conditional, utilitarian arrangement, not a deep and personal bond;

Students must always be on the lookout for slights, as these always mean something much more pernicious than a simple faux pas; and

A single bad joke, dumb comment, or unwise tweet at any moment could, and even should, derail future academic or professional careers.

Principle 9: Don’t reduce complex students to limiting labels.

Sorting students into politically useful categories that involve assigning them character attributes or destinies based on immutable traits circumscribes their potential and hampers their growth. Self-determination is foundational to the American promise and central to our unique national identity. Students must be permitted to decide for themselves how much, or how little, emphasis they wish to place on their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, social class, or economic background.

Principle 10: If it’s broke, fix it.

Be willing to form new institutions that empower students and educate them with the principles of a free, diverse, and pluralistic society. Is this a formula for peace and quiet? No. But free societies aren’t supposed to be particularly quiet. As Justice Robert Jackson gravely warned in 1943, attempts to coerce unanimity of opinion have only resulted in “the unanimity of the graveyard.”

Continue ReadingWhat the Opponents of “Critical Race Theory” are Most Concerned About. What Teachers Should be Teaching Instead of CRT.

Greg Lukianoff’s Analysis of “Critical Race Theory” in the Classroom

Attorney Greg Lukianoff of FIRE (Foundation For Individual Rights in Education) has written a detailed legal analysis regarding a disturbing and divisive method of "teaching race" in the classroom (which many have referred to as "Critical Race Theory") (and see here and here).  This trend in the classroom is divisive because many teachers think it's a good idea to categorize there students as "colors" and to divide them into these "colors," sometimes physically.  It disturbing because the main job as a teacher is to teach students how to think, not what to think. The title of his article is "13 important points in the campus & K-12 ‘critical race theory’ debate." Below, I've included an excerpt from Point 8 of Lukianoff's 13 points:

Each side’s distorted impression of the goals of the other side, and of what’s actually in the bills, has been an unfortunate side effect of the media coverage. Those listening to left-leaning outlets and pundits could be forgiven for thinking that the bills outright ban discussion of slavery. Those listening to right-leaning outlets and pundits could be forgiven for having no idea of the breadth and vagueness of a lot of the clauses in these bills, and the chilling effect they may create with teachers making good faith attempts to comply. The media coverage of these bills has been largely lacking in deep-dives into the actual text of the bills, instead relying on broad characterizations of their intent and the motivations behind those introducing them.

As I’ve already gone into many of the good points made by the critics of these bills, I would like to pay some attention to the valid concerns that the bills were meant to address. With the exception of the vague kinds of clauses mentioned above, most of what these bills prohibit are speech or patterns of behavior by teachers that even many of the critics of these bills would find problematic, and arguably would already run afoul of laws prohibiting racial discrimination and harassment. For example, North Carolina’s HB 324, mentioned above, prohibits public K-12 schools from “promoting” the following concepts:

(1) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.

(2) An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.

(3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex.

(4) An individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex.

(5) An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.

(6) Any individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress. […]

These bills are a reaction to legitimately concerning documented cases of K-12 students being singled out due to their race and made to participate in exercises that are, arguably, racially discriminatory. I was disturbed to read some of the examples in my co-author — and FIRE colleague — Bonnie Snyder’s forthcoming book Undoctrinate: How Politicized Classrooms Harm Kids and Ruin Our Schools—And What We Can Do About It, such as:

A biracial high school student in Las Vegas was allegedly singled out in class for his appearance and called derogatory names by his teacher. In a lawsuit, the student’s family alleges he was labelled an oppressor, told denying that status was “internalized privilege,” and told he needed to “unlearn” the Judeo-Christian principles imparted by his mother. When he refused to complete certain “identity confession” assignments, the lawsuit claims, the school gave him a failing grade. He has had to attend counseling.

Third grade students in California were forced to analyze their racial and other “identities,” rank themselves according to their supposed “power and privilege,” and were informed that those in the “dominant” culture categories created and continue to maintain this culture to uphold power.

Parents in North Carolina allege that middle school students were forced to stand up in class and apologize to other students for their “privilege.”

Buffalo public schools teach students that all white people perpetuate systemic racism and are guilty of implicit racial bias.

Elementary children at the Fieldston School in Manhattan were sorted by race for mandatory classroom exercises.

A head teacher in Manhattan was caught on tape acknowledging that the curriculum at his school teaches white students that they’re inherently “evil” and saying, “we’re demonizing white people for being born.”

While there is some debate to be had over how widespread the phenomenon is, some students are being made to feel, in class, that their mere existence is problematic and requires an apology or explanation. These bills, wise or not, are intended to address this problem. If your argument against these bills is that they’re much ado about nothing, or a solution in search of a problem, I think you should look deeper and think more critically about what proponents of these laws are worried about.

Continue ReadingGreg Lukianoff’s Analysis of “Critical Race Theory” in the Classroom