ACADEMIA GETS AN ”F”
David Barnhizer
Mallard Fillmore “Quacks” Me Up!
A painfully appropriate Mallard Fillmore comic by Bruce Tinsley captures the essence of many university students’ expectations and how far the educational system has fallen. In Tinsley’s comic, a university professor reads out loud to his class from a student’s “essay”.
“Give Me an ‘A’ on this essay … Or the campus will burn…” [The Professor adds] “That’s the entire essay … [He then adds] Wonderfully concise, with vivid imagery, Kevin!” Bruce Tinsley, “Mallard Fillmore”, The News-Press, Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at E1.
In the Tinsley episode, we don’t know if the teacher is using Kevin’s words as a critique to demonstrate its absurdity, or if he is voicing true appreciation for its Wittgensteinian conciseness. If he is using Kevin as a foil to demonstrate how not to fulfill the assignment, then he will have “insensitively” violated Kevin’s “safe space” and “dehumanized” him by “victimizing” Kevin and making him “feel bad” and even “threatened” because of the consequences of turning in a failing essay. That would mean he used Kevin as a “thing” for the purposes of others’ learning.
On the other hand, if the teacher is actually praising Kevin, he is offending the entire purpose and responsibility of the university as institution, that of instilling critical thought and useful knowledge in the students who are subject to the institution’s control during a vital moment in their intellectual development. This doesn’t even begin to develop the issue of the negative educational impact on students in terms of their sense of how to write an essay, or whether it is possible to obtain whatever they desire through intimidation and threats of violence. By the way, I wonder if Kevin’s professor felt threatened, or thought his classroom “safe space” was violated?
Seth Stevenson describes the cancellation situation in the context of the development of university speech codes. He writes: “These codes have their roots in theories, which gained favor with campus radicals in the 1960s, contending that (as Silverglate and Kors put it) ‘[i]f the powerful and the weak were required to play by the same rules . . . the powerful always would win.’ In other words, as this theory goes, the disadvantaged need different rules, ones more permissive and lenient. What’s more, these rules should extend to speech, not just to actions, because speech can be just as powerful and hurtful.” Seth Stevenson, “The Thought Police,” January 2003.www.bostonmagazine.com, Archives.
The Internet and Social Media Have Felled the “Ivory Tower”
and Left a Pile of Debris
Although college campuses do provide useful locations for high profile protests that attract media attention, repression is not limited to those settings. There really is no significant separation between universities and other venues. The “Ivory Tower” has been relegated to the status of historical artifact. External activists and students now are joining together to launch angry protests against campus presenters—even to the point of violence.
As we see almost daily with the Pro-Hamas and Anti-Jew protests at Columbia and other universities, it has become a clash between radical student protesters and Jewish students at the same university. Some faculty are not only projecting their ideological beliefs onto students, but against other faculty members. The consequences are that otherwise neutral academics often take the path of least resistance in a “spiral of silence” that further legitimators the resort to intimidation and violence by protesters because of the silence and lack of accountability.
One of the more ironic aspects of what is occurring is that shouting, cursing, throwing of objects, threats, intimidating physical movements, demands for apologies, and resignations or firings are relatively frequent actions. They are being engaged in by many who themselves played the role offended and threatened “snowflakes” in the face of being criticized in contexts where they felt they were on the “receiving end” of negative views.
The concept of the need for safe spaces and special protections against threats are the kind of things those purporting to be concerned with “micro-aggressions”, “safety”, “safe spaces”, and various “triggers” should appreciate as being seen as harmful actions by those unfortunate enough to be targeted or canceled. As is common, however, when purported “victims” gain the upper hand they turn out to be as repressive as those they previously condemned as “oppressors” and “haters”.
At this point, the Pro-Hamas protesters have morphed into radical and oppressive terrorists. One truly ironic element is that they claim the right to act as they do based on the First Amendment to a Constitution many have rejected as being nothing more than an instrument of power created by a privileged elite described often as “Old White Men”.
This hiding behind the Constitution being done by provocateurs and fledgling terrorist “protesters” is a strategic example of what Sun Tzu described in his absolute 3000 year -old classic The Art of War. Sun Tzu explained that an invading army wins by “foraging on the enemy” and using the opponent’s resources to pave the path to victory. In that way, you “feed” your forces through resources on which the enemy depends and consequently weaken the opponent by consuming that on which it relies.
America’s critical political resources include devotion to the Rule of Law and to protecting the freedom of speech. The violent and radical protesters go well beyond what rational common sense considers the appropriate limits of that right. The problem is that we struggle to cope with the resulting assault on that fundamental freedom and are “thrown for a loop” in terms of where the limits should be drawn. Our focus is diverted to back-and-forth consideration of limits and responses with the result we are confused, limited, and weakened. In essence, we have been “foraged”. This is what is happening with Cancel Culture, the invention of strange new words and insistence on pronouns, gender shifts that seem to violate fundamental scientific fact based on assertion rather than clear evidence, and violent and rabid protests.
Somehow, it has become appropriate behavior to subject those with whom you disagree to such behavior, but as suggested above about more permissive standards for what is allowed, you are protected from consequences only if you are in an alleged “victim class” and on “the right side of history”. This is so even though, if that behavior were reversed, it would be seen as a terrible, bigoted, and offensive form of behavior.
It seems as if the “treat others as you wish to be treated” principle that undergirds so much of the world’s philosophies only applies in one direction. The “Cause” rules all. What occurs demonstrates that the “Cancel” movement is two-faced and hypocritical. But since its goal is gaining power and control through silencing any opposition, that incredible level of hypocrisy is an essential part of the Movement’s strategy.
As to courage, whether among academics, corporations, or political leaders, it is easier to “go along” than to become a target or pariah. For a politician it is also a way to prevent the loss of voter support among the members of the person’s carefully developed base. For businesses it is a way to appeal to one’s consumer base by public relations “virtue signaling”. The power to organize and conduct these strategies is created by the Internet-based proliferation of social media platforms and instantaneous communication. This makes it easy for people to create “herds”, “flash mobs”, and “offended” and “outraged” groups which, almost by definition are guaranteed to be products of emotion, rage and hate rather than fact and reason. This “power of the platform” creates the ability to recruit, communicate, intimidate and destroy.
The Insane and Unforgivable Persecution of Gordon Klein
Just as with the criminality and corruption that pervades the Dark Web, social media platforms have empowered a host of fanatics, demagogues and political terrorists. Social media is rapidly destroying even the lingering sense of principled community, shared values and intellectual integrity that are vital elements of democratic systems of governance. This tragic situation is highlighted in the situation that faced Gordon Klein at UCLA.
20,000 “people” allegedly signed an online petition against Gordon Klein virtually overnight. That is extremely hard to believe. What is far easier and more likely, is that several computer whizzes created a rabid mob by launching “bots” as pretend petition signees. If 20,000 people in this situation had the time to check out what happened, determine whether UCLA had issued a policy consistent with what Klein stated about what he and other faculty were required to do, obtain other relevant background information on the situation, and then take the time to think about the evidence their search for facts uncovered, then I could at least respect the efforts.
But anyone reading about Klein’s situation knows that never happened. This is the danger of the casual and contemptible viciousness of Cancel Culture stupidity. “Knee jerk” responses to online petitions, virtue signaling and the desire to feel you are meaningful, mean spiritedness, peer pressure, feeling significant, the power of “taking action” are all contributing factors. It still, however, would not be enough to produce 20,000 human “cancellers”.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/gordon-klein-ucla-professor-suspended-sacrificial-lamb. “Suspended UCLA prof says school used him as 'sacrificial lamb' to placate 'those who threaten to riot’”, Victor Garcia, 6/10/20.
A UCLA accounting professor who was suspended by the university after he refused a request to modify final exams in the wake of George Floyd's death [has stated] that he was following school policy. "I got a directive, as did my colleagues, that we should absolutely continue the traditional policy [of] the university, and give the exam as scheduled with only the normal excuses, such as you're in a car accident, you had a death in the family," Gordon Klein [stated] and the school knows it.” According to Inside Higher Ed, the students – who described themselves as "nonblack allies" – asked Klein to make the final exam "no-harm," meaning it could only boost students' grades. They also requested that he extend the deadlines for final assignments and projects.
Klein described the university's action as "a sad day for free inquiry.”
"I cited in my email [response] my belief in Martin Luther King's principles. I called Minnesota a tragedy. And the student himself who contacted me thanked me for getting them through troubling times, thanked me for sending them anti-racist materials," he said. "The school simply doesn't care. They want to placate the angry mob. "And it's a tragedy for the future of education because historically, the faculty code of conduct [says] You must not have a choice. You must grade people based on merit. The school is disregarding its own policies in favor of the squeaky wheel, those who threaten to riot."
Klein Under Police Protection After Threats
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ucla-professor-suspended-under-police-protection-after-threats. “UCLA professor suspended, under police protection after threats”, Caleb Parke, 6/9/20.
A California college professor reportedly is being investigated for discrimination and under police protection after refusing a request to exempt black students from final exams in the wake of George Floyd's death. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department reportedly has an increased police presence outside Klein's home after multiple threats. At least 20,000 people signed a petition calling for Klein's removal after a student who wasn't in the class posted the email exchange on social media. Klein was asked for a "no-harm" final exam, shortened exams, and extended deadlines for final assignments and projects due to "traumas" that put students in the class "in a position where we must choose between actively supporting our black classmates or focusing on finishing up our spring quarter," according to screenshots obtained by Inside Higher Ed.
Avery Tompkins, a “Diversity Scholar” at Transylvania University“Cancels” Nick Sandmann Before He Is In Attendance at the School
https://www.foxnews.com/us/aclu-staffer-fumes-at-university-for-accepting-nick-sandmann-calls-it-a-stain-on-the-school-report. “ACLU staffer fumes at university for accepting Nick Sandmann, calls it a 'stain' on the school: report”, Nick Givas. 9/8/20.
An American Civil Liberties Union official in Kentucky chastised Transylvania University over the weekend for accepting Nicholas Sandmann as a student, calling the move a "stain" on the institution. Sandmann made headlines back in January 2019 when a Native American activist stood in front of the teen and began chanting in his face during a pro-life rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. Sandmann, who was wearing a MAGA hat at the time and is a supporter of President Trump, [showing a great deal of maturity] held his ground and smiled at the man as he continued to talk in his face.
An assistant professor and diversity scholar at Transylvania University, Avery Tompkins, shared a comment on the post before it was taken down, calling Sandmann's “public behavior and rhetoric atrocious and uninformed.” “We can’t not admit academically qualified students due to their political and personal views," he said. "If he ends up in my Intro class, fine. He might learn something that is actually based on research and evidence.” Tompkins added that Sandmann is part of groups that hold “anti-intellectualist views” and would see the professor "as part of some liberal brainwashing machine, but signing up for Transy and my class means he is required to learn that information, even if he disagrees.”
Sandmann’s Admirable Response. “I Will Not Be Canceled!”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8718353/Covington-Catholic-teen-Nick-Sandmann-slams-ACLU-official-criticized-college-accepting-him.html. “'I will not be canceled': Covington Catholic teen Nick Sandmann slams ACLU official who criticized Transylvania University for accepting him, saying 'it is wrong for any of us to demean people who hold different beliefs’”, Rachel Sharp and Ariel Zilber, 9/10/20.
The Trump-supporting teen voiced concerns that right-wing students at colleges across America 'face attacks just for speaking out and exercising their First Amendment rights' and vowed that he 'will not be canceled'.
The “Diversity Police” Are Interested in Power, Not True Diversity
“The diversity police have zero interest in encouraging diverse viewpoints. Instead, they are university-sponsored advocates for approved minorities, approved viewpoints, and approved grievances.” See, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/30/charles-lipson-chicago-professor-slams-delicate-sn/
Charles Lipson explains how “safety” has captured America’s universities since the 1960s, including the administrators who determine matters important to the well-being of university faculty.
“[Safety] has its own special meaning, well beyond legitimate concerns about robbery, sexual assaults, and coercive threats. Some students have stretched the term to mean ‘I feel unsafe because I disagree with your ideas. So shut up. Right now.’”
Lipson adds:
“ ‘Safety’ … is a magic word on campus. Today, dean-of-students offices are devoted to comforting delicate snowflakes and soothing their feelings. If that means stamping out others’ speech, too bad,” he continued. “The deans are typically helped by small bureaucracies with Orwellian titles such as ‘the Office for Diversity and Inclusion.’ The title is deceptive; these offices are ideologically driven. They are not about ‘including’ Chinese-Americans, Cuban-Americans, Jews who support Israel, or evangelical Christians who may feel themselves beleaguered minorities on campus.
Real Friends Stick With You—Just Ask Alan Dershowitz
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/9/marthas-vineyard-paper-puts-alan-dershowitzs-shunn/. “Martha's Vineyard paper puts Alan Dershowitz's shunning to test, finds 63% won't dine with professor”, Jessica Chasmar, The Washington Times, 7/9/18.
“After famed liberal law professor and attorney Alan Dershowitz said he’d been shunned at Martha’s Vineyard due to his willingness to defend President Trump’s civil liberties, the island’s local newspaper decided to put his claims to the test. The Martha’s Vineyard Times asked readers if they would invite Mr. Dershowitz to dinner — 37 percent said yes, compared to 63 percent who said no. Of those who said yes, 42 percent said they would invite him because they agreed with his public defense of the president. Of those who said no, 56 percent said the reason was because they disagreed with his defense of the president.”
Cancel Culture seems like occurred with many families and friends in the Civil War. Families can be permanently split apart and lifelong friends developing festering animosities that cannot be “talked out”. Shunning, ostracism, and personal attacks are the consequences. Alan Dershowitz is a law professor, lawyer, civil rights advocate and staunch defender of the Rule of Law. As a lawyer, law professor, activist and someone deeply committed to the preservation of the Rule of Law as the single most fundamental element in the American political and Constitutional system I fully share those beliefs and commitments. Regardless of their rhetoric the “Cancelers” are engaged in a strategy that inevitably and possibly permanently weakens the core values of the American political system.
I was a criminal defense lawyer representing poor and minority clients—many of them guilty of doing something that wasn’t very nice. I also created the training program for the area’s Public Defender office. Along with that, one of the law school courses I taught was Criminal Law. In teaching Criminal Law one of the inevitable issues that arose involved students asking “How can you do that and represent someone you know is guilty and even harmed innocent people?” It is a fair question. What came out of those kinds of questions was the need and the opportunity to discuss the fact that lawyers must have a form of “professional split personality” to do the job they are sworn to do—provide the highest quality legal representation to their clients. Even now I have to tell people, there is a “personal” me and there is a “professional” me and it takes time to develop the professional perspective that is so vital to maintaining the Rule of Law. Non-lawyers are generally unable to understand or appreciate that dichotomy, at least until they find themselves in need of such professional services.
Being unable to understand the necessity of that professional role, many people condemn anyone they consider to be a “monster” or a “traitor”. They do so without for a second considering that the Constitutional and moral need for lawyers to provide representation so that the State’s powers over all of us are carefully tested before people targeted by the power of the law can be imprisoned, sanctioned or even executed are kept under control. That is what Alan Dershowitz provides and like many other lawyers he pays a price for doing so. Part of that price involved the loss of friends and close acquaintances to the point that, as the clip below shows, two-thirds of the people on Martha’s Vineyard wouldn’t even have dinner with him.
Stanford Cancels Scott Atlas
Stanford University’s faculty leans dramatically Left. The Hoover Institution’s academic and research staff strongly lean toward the “Middle Right”. They have an uncomfortable formal relationship created decades ago and, given the extreme polarization that now characterizes America generally and has hit the academic world with overwhelming intensity the faculty and administration at Stanford has become increasingly vocal about the connection with Hoover—accusing its quite prominent and influential Senior Fellows of using Stanford’s reputation in ways that gain greater attention.
The Senior Fellow list at Hoover is long, and Scott Atlas is among them. A sampling of others includes Victor Davis Hanson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, John Cochrane, Richard Epstein, Timothy Garton Ash, Henry Kissinger, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Harvey Mansfiel,d and Condoleeza Rice to name a few. The policy differences between those intellectuals and the significant majority of Stanford’s faculty ensure that the relationship is not a “match made in heaven”. The experience of Scott Atlas offers one example. It also demonstrates the overweening arrogance of the university in which they Faculty Senate voted overwhelmingly to censure Atlas in a COVID-19 context when it is clear they were almost completely ignorant relative to the dynamics of the situation.
https://news.stanford.edu/2020/11/20/faculty-senate-condemns-actions-hoover-fellow-scott-atlas/. “Faculty Senate condemns COVID-19 actions of Hoover’s Scott Atlas: In its last meeting of the autumn quarter, the Stanford Faculty Senate condemned the COVID-19-related actions of Hoover senior fellow and presidential adviser Scott Atlas’, Kate Chesley, 11/20/20.
The Stanford Faculty Senate on Thursday condemned the COVID-19-related actions of Scott Atlas, a Hoover Institution senior fellow serving as a special assistant to President Donald Trump for coronavirus issues. A resolution … approved by 85 percent of the senate membership, specified six actions that Atlas has taken that “promote a view of COVID-19 that contradicts medical science.” Among the actions cited are: [1] discouraging the use of masks and other protective measures, [2] misrepresenting knowledge and opinion regarding the management of pandemics, [3] endangering citizens and public officials, [4] showing disdain for established medical knowledge and [5] damaging Stanford’s reputation and academic standing. The resolution states that Atlas’ behavior is “anathema to our community, our values and our belief that we should use knowledge for good.” … In approving the resolution, members of the senate called on university leadership to “forcefully disavow Atlas’ actions as objectionable on the basis of the university’s core values and at odds with our own policies and guidelines concerning COVID-19 and campus life.”
Atlas’s Anti-Lockdown Position Has Strong Support, and Lockdowns
Turned Out To Have Serious Unintended Consequences
https://www.theepochtimes.com/lockdown-measures-catastrophic-for-recovering-addicts-mental-health_3643402.html. “Lockdown Measures Catastrophic for Recovering Addicts, Mental Health”, Charlotte Cuthbertson, 1/5/21.
[T]he endless shutdowns have created conditions that are challenging for healthy people, let alone those who are fresh out of rehab, vulnerable, and still reeling. Matt Royce, 35, oversees seven sober-living homes in Minneapolis. All of his houses, each holding between 9 and 13 people, have been “pretty full the whole time.” … Depression has “skyrocketed” since the lockdowns began, Royce said. Recovering addicts are struggling even more now due to boredom, inability to see family and friends, and lack of social activities. … Nationally, drug overdose deaths are at historic highs. In lockstep with widespread shutdown measures, overdose deaths accelerated, especially between March and May last year, according to an emergency health advisory issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Dec. 17, 2020. … “This represents a worsening of the drug overdose epidemic in the United States and is the largest number of drug overdoses for a 12-month period ever recorded,” the CDC stated.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/cali-covid-surge-lockdowns. “State with one of the strictest lockdowns in the country has the most COVID cases: California has imposed some of the strictest lockdown measures of any state but continues to see a surge in COVID-19 cases”, Louis Casiano, 12/25/20.
"The right approach, before the vaccine, is to work to protect the elderly. Those are the people – especially living in nursing homes – are the ones who are at the highest risk of death if they were to get infected by" COVID19, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, said earlier this month. The right policy would be to protect the elderly irrespective of where they live, older people with chronic conditions who are in the workforce and essential workers like janitors or bus drivers, he said.
“[T]hese broad lockdowns … cause a lot of harm to the non-elderly. They’re not doing very much to slow the spread of the disease," he said. World Health Organization envoy Dr. David Nabarro said such restrictive measures should only be treated as a last resort. "We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus," Nabarro said in an interview with the British magazine the Spectator.
William Jacobson and the Effort to “Cancel” His Cornell Faculty Position for Criticizing the Umbrella Organization Black Lives Matter, Inc. as Opposed to “Black lives matter”
Jacobson is politically conservative which, in itself, makes him an automatic target in academia. His offense involves writing a blog post critical of Black Lives Matter and what he perceives as the true motivations of its founders. Jacobson also founded the Legal Insurrection Foundation. He describes his situation.
“There is an effort underway to get me fired at Cornell Law School, where I’ve worked since November 2007, or if not fired, at least denounced publicly by the school” … “I condemn in the strongest terms any insinuation that I am racist.” The conservative professor and media critic who founded the influential website Legal Insurrection wrote that he’s been in an “awkward relationship” with the “overwhelmingly liberal faculty and atmosphere” for years, specifically since his website launched in 2008. “Living as a conservative on a liberal campus is like being the mouse waiting for the cat to pounce,” he wrote.
Michael Rectenwald and His Cancelation by NYU’s
“Liberal Studies Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Working Group”
An NYU professor posting on Twitter and criticizing political correctness and student coddling was booted from the classroom after his colleagues complained about his “incivility”. A New York Post report indicates that Liberal studies professor Michael Rectenwald stated he had to go on paid leave from NYU based on the organized reactions to his criticisms. He claimed: “They are actually pushing me out the door for having a different perspective”.
Rectenwald posted on an anonymous Twitter account called Deplorable NYU Prof, arguing against campus trends like “safe spaces,” “trigger warnings”, policing of Halloween costumes, and academia’s growing culture of Political Correctness. “It’s an alarming curtailment of free expression to the point where you can’t even pretend to be something without authorities coming down on you in the universities,” Rectenwald [said]. …
A 12-person committee calling itself the Liberal Studies Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Working Group, that included two deans, several faculty members and multiple students published a letter to the editor in the same NYU paper [in which Rectenwald admitted he had written the posts]. The Deans and “Committee” stated: “As long as he airs his views with so little appeal to evidence and civility, we must find him guilty of illogic and incivility in a community that predicates its work in great part on rational thought and the civil exchange of ideas,” they wrote. “We seek to create a dynamic community that values full participation…”
The “Committee” suggested publicly that Rectenwald was in need of mental health assistance due to his views. This beyond bizarre action calls into question how open, civil, and logical they were.
As this witch hunt developed, some students told him that professors in the department had openly discussed with students how he might be fired. It is therefore worth noting that the website Rate My Professor contains student posts that are quite positive about Rectenwald’s open mindedness and teaching ability. Rectenwald nonetheless stated in relation to his ordeal: “I’m afraid my academic career is over.” That observation has proved accurate. https://nypost.com/2016/10/30/nyu-professor-who-opposed-pc-culture-gets-booted-from-classroom/. “Professor who tweeted against PC culture is out at NYU”, Melkorka Licea, October 30, 2016.
He sued NYU and four female faculty members for defamatory online posts, and resigned his faculty position in 2019. He told the New York Post that the twenty “hateful” e-mails had made his academic life a nightmare, stating: “I’ve been universally shunned by the entire department” .… “In academia, to be called a ‘racist’ and a ‘sexist’ is like the kiss of death.” https://nypost.com/2018/01/13/deplorable-nyu-professor-sues-colleagues-for-defamation/. “‘Deplorable’ NYU professor sues colleagues for defamation”, Melkorka Licea, 1/13/2018.
A Very Slight Bit of Hope at the University of Chicago
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/us/university-of-chicago-strikes-back-against-campus-political-correctness.html. “University of Chicago Strikes Back Against Campus Political Correctness”, Richard Pérez-Peña, Mitch Smith and Stephanie Saul, 8/26/2016.
While we are most likely in a “too little, too late” situation, that Chicago statement asserts:
“Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”
The Philadelphia Statement
https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-fight-for-free-speech_3528032.html. “The Fight for Free Speech”, Walter E. Williams, 10/7/20.
There is some emerging pushback. Walter Williams reports on “The Philadelphia Statement”—indicating that:
While free speech has been under attack, we are beginning to see some pushback. More than 12,000 professors, free speech leaders, and conservative-leaning organization leaders have signed “The Philadelphia Statement.” The 845-word document says, in part: “Similarly, colleges and universities are imposing speech regulations to make students ‘safe,’ not from physical harm, but from challenges to campus orthodoxy. These policies and regulations assume that we as citizens are unable to think for ourselves and to make independent judgments. Instead of teaching us to engage, they foster conformism (“groupthink”) and train us to respond to intellectual challenges with one or another form of censorship. A society that … allows people to be shamed or intimidated into self-censorship of their ideas and considered judgments will not survive for long. “As Americans, we desire a flourishing, open marketplace of ideas, knowing that it is the fairest and most effective way to separate falsehood from truth. Accordingly, dissenting and unpopular voices—be they of the left or the right—must be afforded the opportunity to be heard. They have often guided our society toward more just positions, which is why Frederick Douglass said freedom of speech is the ‘great moral renovator of society and government.’”
Williams adds:
The recognition of the intellectual elite attacking free speech is not new. In a 1991 speech, Yale University President Benno Schmidt warned: “The most serious problems of freedom of expression in our society today exist on our campuses. The assumption seems to be that the purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and to liberate the mind.”