Powerful Elite Colleges Refuse to Consider the Damage They Do Regarding Cancelation and Censorship

At The Free Press, Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott explore how it came to be that so many American Colleges have come to embrace canceling and censorship rather than free speech. Here is an excerpt from "How American Colleges Gave Birth to Cancel Culture: A new book shows how universities first embraced a system of social punishment that now pervades our everyday lives":

The First Amendment wasn’t created to protect the interests of the rich and powerful. After all, the moneyed and influential have historically been protected by their wealth and power. And the United States didn’t need a special right to protect the will of a majority—that’s what democratic votes are for.

In the end, the First Amendment is primarily needed to protect minority views, unpopular opinions, and the expression of those who clash with the ruling elite.

But on campus today, you’re likely to hear this argument turned entirely on its head—as if championing free speech is somehow doing the bidding of the powerful. But that’s only because academia doesn’t like to admit that it actually is extremely wealthy and influential itself, or that those who defend the status quo are defending an extraordinarily powerful American industry. . .

From a purely financial perspective, the higher education apparatus is among the wealthiest and most influential institutions in the world. But you wouldn’t know that from the way many in academia try to position themselves. Colleges and universities are far from the humble academic hubs they claim to be, but many in higher education have a hard time admitting it’s been a long while since they were the underdogs.

Academia’s free speech skepticism is part of a long history of powerful people undercutting the First Amendment. Given that elites seldom like limitations on their power (and particularly on their power to censor), it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the First Amendment was limited by judges and politicians from the very moment of its inception.

Continue ReadingPowerful Elite Colleges Refuse to Consider the Damage They Do Regarding Cancelation and Censorship

Neocon PR 101

From David Sachs:

The neocon press cycle:

1) New threat to American Democracy in country X! 2) Anyone who questions this narrative is unpatriotic/traitor. 3) Victory is imminent and guaranteed. 4) Victory will take time but is worth it. 5) If we don’t redouble our efforts, we will lose. 6) Setbacks were inevitable. 7) Internal doubts and a lack of staying power cost us the war. 8) Press blackout on country X. (Never that important.)

Wait 6 months. Repeat with country Y.

In case you are looking for a detailed definition for "neocon."

Continue ReadingNeocon PR 101

The Fall of Scientific American

From Spiked:

When you come across the longstanding magazine, Scientific American, you could be forgiven for assuming that scientific truth would play a pivotal role in its output.

But not any more, it seems. Scientific American, founded in 1845, is the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States. It has previously featured work by Albert Einstein, among others. However, in recent years, it appears to have been taken over by contributors who consider themselves activists first and scientists second. The magazine’s ethos now includes the express aim of ‘sharing trustworthy knowledge, enhancing our understanding of the world, and advancing social justice’ (my emphasis). It has also started to intervene in electoral politics, too. In 2020, Scientific American broke with a 175-year history of non-partisanship to endorse Joe Biden in the US presidential election.

Worst of all, when its articles touch on questions of gender and biological sex, Scientific American seems to have abandoned objective facts entirely, in favour of trans-activist pseudoscience.

Steven Pinker agrees:

As Jonathan Haidt warned, universities (and here, science magazines) can only have one telos. To do otherwise gives rise to a conflict of interest that corrupts the main mission.

If one wants to know what sex is or how many sexes there are, just ask a real life trained biologist, such as my friend Luana Maroja, who has no conflict of interest. She takes pride in being a real-life legitimate biology professor who know that there are two (and only two) human sexes because there are two (and only two) types of human gametes:

Continue ReadingThe Fall of Scientific American

Inconsistently Applied Principles of Woke Ideology Exposed by Student Reactions to Recent Gaza Events

At National Review, Charles Cooke's sharp-edged article invites us to exhale. We didn't believe most of the allegedly high-minded principles proclaimed by Woke Ideologists.  They didn't either. Here's an excerpt from "The Woke Code of Morality Was All Nonsense":

Pick, at random, a fashionable idea about the ideal limits of free expression, and you’ll observe that it has collapsed ignominiously into the dust. The prohibition on “tone policing”? Gone. The injunction to “believe all women”? Evaporated. The insistence that “silence is violence,” that “neutrality is complicity,” or that institutions are thus obliged to speak out about any injustice that they might see? Defunct. Obsolete. Kaput. In the annals of bad human ideas, has an ideology ever been as swiftly hollowed out as was this one?

After noticing the hypocrisy, Jonathan Haidt also weighed in, making reference to the release (this week) of a new book by Greg Lukianof and Rikki Schlott, The Canceling of the American Mind (2023). First of all here's how Haidt and The Canceling define cancel culture: "efforts to silence people by threatening them with social death, unemployment, or physical harm for questioning orthodox beliefs or proposing heterodox theories. " Haidt's comment:

The Canceling was a darn good book when I read a draft last spring, in order to write the Foreword for it. It’s an even better book now that the world has been treated to the shocking spectacle of so many university presidents remaining silent, or issuing only vague and cautious comments, in days after the October 7 terrorist attack on Israel. Their collective reticence stood in stark contrast to the speed with which so many had offered expressions of solidarity or shared grief whenever an election or court case went the “wrong” way in the years since 2014. (In general I think universities should embrace the “Chicago Principles” and commit to institutional neutrality. See Jeff Flier’s recent application of these principles to the current situation. But if university leaders made so many pronouncements on “controversial” issues before October 7, then they should have made a strong one on October 8.)

Why did so many leaders take so long to say anything strong or (seemingly) heartfelt about the largest mass slaughter of Jews since the holocaust? Why did so many wait a few days to see which way the wind was blowing before augmenting their initially tepid statements? I see nothing to suggest antisemitism; I see everything to suggest fear.

Continue ReadingInconsistently Applied Principles of Woke Ideology Exposed by Student Reactions to Recent Gaza Events