Hundreds of College Professors Sign FIRE Letter of Concern Directed to Hamline University Firing of Art History Professor

I'm honored to be one of the signatories of this letter to Hamline University in Support of an instructor unfairly dismissed by Hamline. I was among many college professors FIRE invited to view and sign the letter. The letter details the incident, the facts of which are so absurd that one might wonder whether they were made up. But they are absolutely true. Here's an excerpt from the letter:

We are deeply concerned by reports that Hamline dismissed a faculty member for presenting pedagogically relevant artwork depicting the Prophet Muhammad during an art history class session on Islamic art.

The notable piece, which has been studied and shared extensively since the 14th century, enriches students’ understandings of Islamic history, the life of Prophet Muhammad, the nature of Qur’anic revelations, and the significance of religious iconography.

Therefore, in presenting the image, the instructor was exercising academic freedom for one of its core intended purposes: to introduce students to “the best published expressions of the great historic types of doctrine upon the questions at issue,” and “to provide them access to those materials which they need if they are to think intelligently.”

Moreover, the instructor, out of respect for some Muslim students’ religious convictions, stated in the syllabus that Islamic images would be presented, and that participation in the visual exercise and discussion would be optional. Before presenting a slide of the painting, the instructor also reportedly alerted the class.

After a student complained, the instructor emailed the student to apologize. But this was deemed insufficient. Associate Vice President for Inclusive Excellence David Everett sent an all-staff email describing the Islamic image and classroom exercise as “undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful, and Islamophobic,” later declaring, “it was best that this faculty member was no longer part of the Hamline community.”

Continue ReadingHundreds of College Professors Sign FIRE Letter of Concern Directed to Hamline University Firing of Art History Professor

Banning Gas Stoves is Now a Priority for Some

The federal government is considering a ban on gas stoves.

Three points.

1. They will need to pry my gas stove from my cold dead hands.

2. Do you really want to shut down all the restaurants that use gas to cook, including my favorite little stir fry take-out place at the end of my block.

3. If you are REALLY worried about particulates, don't read Sam Harris' article about the dangers of fireplaces (link in the comments). Here's an excerpt:

It seems to me that many nonbelievers have forgotten—or never knew—what it is like to suffer an unhappy collision with scientific rationality. We are open to good evidence and sound argument as a matter of principle, and are generally willing to follow wherever they may lead. Certain of us have made careers out of bemoaning the failure of religious people to adopt this same attitude.

However, I recently stumbled upon an example of secular intransigence that may give readers a sense of how religious people feel when their beliefs are criticized. It’s not a perfect analogy, as you will see, but the rigorous research I’ve conducted at dinner parties suggests that it is worth thinking about. We can call the phenomenon “the fireplace delusion.” . . .

Here is what we know from a scientific point of view: There is no amount of wood smoke that is good to breathe. It is at least as bad for you as cigarette smoke, and probably much worse. (One study found it to be 30 times more potent a carcinogen.) The smoke from an ordinary wood fire contains hundreds of compounds known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and irritating to the respiratory system. Most of the particles generated by burning wood are smaller than one micron—a size believed to be most damaging to our lungs. In fact, these particles are so fine that they can evade our mucociliary defenses and travel directly into the bloodstream, posing a risk to the heart. Particles this size also resist gravitational settling, remaining airborne for weeks at a time.

Continue ReadingBanning Gas Stoves is Now a Priority for Some

An Inert People is “the Greatest Menace” to our Republic

Voting is obviously important. But as citizens of these United States, one of our most sacred obligations is to work hard between the elections.  We need to talk with each other or else we will not be a united community, but only an ugly place were "factions" fight each other. For the Founders factions were one of their biggest fears.  Here are Madison's words from "The Federalist No. 10":

Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments, never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail therefore to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice and confusion introduced into the public councils, have in truth been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have every where perished . . .

By a faction 1 understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. ...

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects....

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them every where brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning Government and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have in turn divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions, has been the various and unequal distribution of property.

Madison viewed "pure democracy" as a dangerous thing.

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingAn Inert People is “the Greatest Menace” to our Republic

Pathologizing Dissent

This is the next step in the evolution of censorship: declaring that those with dissenting opinions are not well, that they are mentally ill. And then threatening to yank their professional licenses. That this approach has been embraced by an organization of psychologists is especially noteworthy. The article by Neeraja Deshpande is titled Will Jordan Peterson Lose His License for Wrongthink? The Canadian psychologist is right to resist re-education. Here's an excerpt:

The College of Psychologists of Ontario has told [psychologist Jordan] Peterson that if he doesn’t go to therapy—sorry, a board-mandated “Coaching Program” with a board-issued therapist—it may revoke his license to practice psychology. What warranted this ultimatum? A few tweets and a podcast.

According to Peterson, about “a dozen people” from around the world complained to the college about comments he had made on Twitter and on Joe Rogan’s podcast, claiming that those statements had caused “harm.”

In March, the college began investigating these complaints. Then, in November, the college informed Peterson: “The comments at issue appear to undermine the public trust in the profession as a whole, and raise questions about your ability to carry out your responsibilities as a psychologist.”

. . . .

Institutions whose mission is to facilitate open discourse have become shells of their former selves, living off their rapidly decaying legacies to conform to the whims of the mob.

But there is something about the Peterson story that is more chilling. It was not enough for the College to declare his comments offensive. It had to go one step further and imply that there was something about him that was unwell. By referring Peterson to a therapist for daring to speak his mind, the College of Psychologists of Ontario has pathologized dissent. It has made political disagreement into an illness.

Continue ReadingPathologizing Dissent