Given my wont to write longish posts on the problems facing classical liberalism as a result of the structural assaults on its most basic tenets from within our university system—and given my critics’ wont to ridicule me for suggesting such is more than some paranoid phantasm (another wingnut fantasy, like the “liberal” media canard, only this one promoted by the arch-evil rightwing propagandist David Horowitz)—I’ve decided to bring on an ally in the cause of exposing the deleterious effects of “tolerance” and “diversity,” as they are currently being peddled, on our constitutional freedoms of speech and assembly. From The Fire Quarterly: Newsletter of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (Spring 2006), “Albertson College Revamps Its Policies After FIRE Criticizes Troubling Speech Codes” [print only]:
[…] In July 2005, FIRE selected one of Albertson’s policies as its “Speech Code of the Month.” That policy provided that “[a]ny comments or conduct relating to a person’s race, gender, religion, disability, age or ethnic background that fail to respect the dignity and feelings of the individual are unacceptable.” FIRE pointed out that while students have a right to be free from certain types of severe harassment, they do not have a right to have their “dignity and feelings” respected at all times.
FIRE also criticized a statement in the Student Handbook providing that “[a]ll inappropriate behaviors may not be specifically covered in the misconduct definitions, and students will be held accountable for behaviors considered inconsistent with the standards and expectations described in this handbook.” Under this policy, students could be punished for behaviors they did not even know were prohibited. Particularly when combined with the broad restrictions on speech in the other policy, this could have a powerful chilling effect on students’ speech.
[My emphases]
Shortly after FIRE named the policy and its enabling Handbook supplement its “Speech Code of the Month,” officials at Albertson “quickly eliminated both of the provisions that FIRE highlighted in the feature. Albertson President Bob Hoover stated that ‘[s]ince its founding, Albertson College of Idaho has embraced the ideals of freedom of speech.’”
Except, of course, when they tried to turn freedom of speech into freedom from being offended, a tendency that, as I’ve many times argued here, grows from a culture of political correctness and petty bureaucratic tyrannies—itself a predictable outgrowth of the elevation of to official policy of identity politics (the mechanism that lends “authenticity” to a particular group narrative, and so provides the group its bargaining power in demanding what can and cannot be said about its members by those outside the group, or by those who have been excommunicated by the group on the grounds that they are “inauthentic,” having rejected the “official” group narrative).
In short, it doesn’t take much to connect the power we’ve granted to (politically-motivated) identity groups to an overall chill in free speech, one that necessarily arises out of trying to accomodate each group’s individual list of grievances.
The simplest way to do this—and sadly, the expedient course many universities have taken, when they are able to get away with it—is to try to turn “tolerance” on its ear and redefine it entirely as a concept. But being tolerant means being able to hear opposing viewpoints and not react violently; what it doesn‘t mean is that anything controversial or offensive to anyone must be banished from official discourse, or relegated to a specified “free speech zone.”
Free speech is founded on the idea that debate is essential to solving (or at least acknowledging) social problems through the marketplace of ideas. Unfortunately, many universities now see free speech as an inconvenience that rubs up against the “tolerance” and “diversity” platforms that identity politics have created, and that many progressives within the university continue to support.
Which is what has led to the anti-intellectual environment on many university campuses.
The answer may or may not be something like Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights; however, what is essential is the rejection of collectivist social impulses that result in a rejection of free speech and free assembly—and by extension, a rejection of individual rights so important to a society claiming to adhere to classical liberal values.
here.
Another long-winded post, Jeff? Haven’t you learned your lesson?
I don’t know what I think of Horowitz’s idea. I’m pretty skeptical on whether the Academic Bill of Rights is the answer. On the other hand, I know speech codes, collegiate faculties that make Kos diarists look ideologically diverse, and tolerance like Ivy League Taliban officials aren’t the answer so what could it hurt to try it?
Well, if the reactionary leftist response to Horowitz is any indication, it would be a good start.
When the reactionaries lie, smear and launch ad hominum attacks, you are usually doing something right.
You make an excellent point. What has happened here is that universities have tried to take speech that is clearly offensive and meant to insult (kiss my a**) and confuse it with speech that differs from what is politicall correct(I defend a babie’s right to live in the womb)
It has gotten to the point that it isn’t about the debate, it’s about keeping certain things from being debated about.
If one says they are against gay marriage, then one is automatically regarded as a homophobe and hatemonger. No discussions allowed. No trying to see if this person is not hateful and has a point.
We, on both sides, need to stop assuming things about one another and look at our opinions as individuals.
Well, I’d submit that “kiss my ass!” is every bit as valid a bit of political speech as “workers of the world, unite!” Why ban one and not the other? Why ban at all?
Al together, now:
Kiss my ass!
SB: shot
in the dark
Shut up, zionist necon stooge.
Yale.
Because of all this talk about “kiss my ass” I am now listening to that Ted Nugent cd… someone should use that song in their campaign.
We are too precious about our own and others’ dearest beliefs (particularly when they are part of some boutique multiculturalist’s idea of a person’s ‘culture’
–the old Marxists and men of the Enlightenment hated religion, but at least they had enough respect for religion and the religious to attack it honestly with all their force. The postmodernist’s hands-off ‘respect’ for the many religions and belief-systems of the world looks like condescension by comparison. Frictionless multiculturalism is a pointless idea. Anyone who wants to participate not only in the academic world but, for that matter, in the day-to-day life of an open liberal society, must be prepared to take no-holds-barred mockery in stride–whether of our religion or of some other idea fundamental to our sense of self, it doesn’t matter.
As Kierkegaard said in ‘Stages’, “. . .bigoted earnestness always fears the comic, and rightly so; true earnestness itself invents the comic.”
mojo, you have a point. I was going to post something a bit more vulgar, but I’m just too darn nice.
Seriously Sparkle, I personally am not offended in the least by former Homecoming Queens telling me to kiss their ass, that is generally part of the plan.
Thank you for posting this, Jeff. I responded with a post of my own.
In short: I agree, and as a matter of fact these faux-tolerance codes are exacerbating damages within certain communities. Criticism and freedom of expression are crucial for a community to survive.
I heartily agree with what Dr. Horowitz is doing. Of all places, universities should be where people are encouraged to voice their opinions, whatever they may be. How can one be challenged if one is not exposed to different opinions?
I will defend to your death your right to say anything that agrees with me. Speech that disagrees with me is offensive to me and insults my concept of rightousness.
Oh…and I have the right to lie about any and every thing to prove that I am right…and that I know…and I don’t have to believe my lies..but YOU do. If there are facts that prove that I am wrong I can call them lies..because it would hurt my dignity and devastate me as a person if I acknowledged that I was wrong about anything…ever.
I forgot to mention that the above post is a “moonbat parody”.
They should have speech code class, where you learn not to piss off your boss. You learn what freedom means in the world of employment at will outside of the academy.
But:
I think your second clause somewhat refutes the first. The ‘bill of rights’ talks lots about academic freedom, but then sets itself up as saying that ‘dissenting sources’ should be presented by a professor. Whether this means that no econ 101 can be taught without reference to The Critique of Political Economy, is not clear. But this command by a legislature leaves troubling room for collective action.
Actus, I don’t think you can refute a statement that says “the answer may or may not be” something.
Charlie,
Please don’t feed acthole. Let him mumble.
Oh, I meant the equivocation is resolved. The answer is ‘may not.’ Sorry for being unclear.
This is a good approach to Horowitz.
Jeff,
I think the above point about freedom from being offended is very important.This isinexhaustible grievance.It can take mild forms(peoples feeling badly because Ted Turner did a tomahawk chop on TV) or weird forms (a math prof at DePaul losing his job for contradicting Arab/Muslim students on historical facts regarding Palestine),but offending someone is grounds for discipline.At least if the someone complaining is a member of a “special group”
I believe Horowitz is exposing the reality that diversity of thought cannot exist within Collectivism. At least back in the 1950’s during his student days at Columbia University Horowitz was allowed to write without fear of retribution his praise (at the time) of Marxism. Professors st the time consentrated on style and presentation not the ideology. Today Horowitz is simply asking the same respect be given to those diverse ideals which seem to offend the Ivory Tower Collective. I attended a lecture given by Horowitz at Columbia University about a year ago; he asked how many students had read The Communist Manifesto and the majority of students raised their hands. He then asked if anyone had read Fredrick Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom and not one student had raised their hands, likewise, when he asked if anyone had ever heard of Hayek.
There can be no diversity of thought when none is exposed to diverse ideas. Students should not be intimidated to not think freely.
Just as a background, Horowitz was born a ‘red-diaper’ baby and was one of the founders of The New Left. He’s been there, done that and is simply exposing the Left’s vicious and fraudulent tactics.
And the manifesto is such crap marx to assign.
No need to fret about “longish posts.” Far more worthy of concern are your long sentences.
You are an excellent thinker. Your analytical skills are top-shelf. And in posts such as that above, you make very important points while tackling very important topics.
That’s why it’s frustrating when you opt to render the message less accessible than it has to be. Here, for instance, you’ve opened with a 99-word sentence that’s got clauses packed within clauses within clauses. You soon follow it with a 107-word doozy that’s not even a sentence, but a sentence fragment! There’s nothing wrong with sentence fragments in and of themselves; this very comment opens with one. But when they comprise 107 words, eight commas, dizzyingly layered prepositional phrases, and one colossal closing parenthetical, they become problematic.
You bring a lot to the table of public debate. Your voice is crucial. I just wish you wouldn’t keep putting your hand over your mouth when talking. It limits the potential audience from the outset, squandering precious opportunities to communicate messages that need to be heard.
Sorry, but that’s just the way I write these things. They are extemporaneous. I don’t do multiple drafts.
The “fragment” you note, incidentally, clearly follows on the previous paragraph. The word “Except” acts not only as a transition of sorts, but also as a form of compositional conjunction between the two paragraphs.
I simply don’t have the time or inclination to go back through and change semi-colons to periods. I’m writing these posts in between doing other things, and if they are too difficult to follow, that’s just the way it is.
But I’m really growing weary (although it still amuses me somewhat) of people counting up the number of words I use in a sentence. My sentences are densely packed, oftentimes, but there is a lot packed into them, and I’m generally very careful about qualifying my points. Not that it’s helped me, mind you; I’m still accused of reducing my ideological opponents to a monolithic political group, even though I try always to distinguish between left-liberal democrats and progressives, and centrist (or mainstream) Democrats.
I don’t write in newspaper style. And I don’t understand why it is so important to people how many commas and parentheticals I use.
Captain Ed or Steve Green are more to your tastes, it seems to me.
Not only are they easier to read, but you won’t ever feel the need to criticize their styles in the comments on their blogs. Which I’m sure they will greatly appreciate.
Jeff  I’ve spent most the last few months typesetting and footnoting Restoration Comedies. Your material has an almost Hammettish terseness about by comparison.
I love Restoration comedies.
Anyway, do people not notice that I also do the minimalism thing here from time to time?
Nope.
No.
N.
I think, Jeff, you could solve the problem if you would actually count the words in your posts and in your sentences and then post the information. You know, do the work for these people.
Furthermore, perhaps you could write a standard disclaimer about the length of your posts and your sentences. The disclaimer could contain information about which posts are jokes and why. If you feel like it, your disclaimer could include information about previous discussions about who has been offended by you, who has offended you, what you’ve done to keep yourself from being similarly offended and offensive in the future, and maybe some information about who you’ve banned and why.
Because I fear it will not be enough to have a such a disclaimer available as a link, this disclaimer should actually be your main page, and one could click through the diclaimer to get to your posts, although perhaps the posts (with the word counts, of course), could link back to the disclaimer in case anyone missed it.
In the future, anything anyone complains about could be added to your disclaimer. Because you care.
If you could do this without offending anybody, that’d be super.
I am a problem solver, Jeff. And I am here for you.
Hmmm.
@ Jeff
But what if I’m offended by their freedom from being offended?
Don’t I have the right to have my freedom from being offended?
sw: such policies aren’t worth one red cent.
Shut up.
C’mon, that’s just offensive.
Say it in spanish, which is the native language of the rightful owners of this land.
cierre su boca.
Sei shtill.
“I am a problem solver, Jeff. And I am here for you.”
Good ideas MayBee. Could you also make it available in braille, too, Jeff?
While arguing with a relative who is a gay activist, she told me that “gay” businesses should have the right to refuse to accommodate customers who did not support gay rights.
When I observed that that was not very “tolerant”, as well as possibly illegal, she replied that she was not obliged to tolerate people who were “intolerant”.
That’s when I realized that it’s just a word game. If you agree with me, you’re “tolerant”, if you don’t, you’re “intolerant” and if you’re “intolerant” I can do anything I want to you.
That is a definition of “tolerance” that even Pol Pot could support..
Great blog. I for one have no trouble understanding what you are trying to convey regardless of punctuation.
I find it very funny actually that some people are so obsessive as to be totally thrown by the improper use of a comma, semi-colon, etc.
“I can’t concentrate on what point he is trying to make because of run on sentences, and improper punctuation!”
Please don’t take such silliness to heart.
Not really. Businesses have to accomodate people without regard to race. But they don’t have to accomodate people without regard to their politics. Its about what criteria will be protected, say like sexuality, or religion, or race.
99 words! The horror!
I’ve been trying to poke a little fun at the would-be editors and English teachers from time to time, especially when they’re just flat wrong (length does not a run-on sentence make, ascetic is not merely a noun), but it looks like I’m not having much of an effect. (To be fair, at least this latest one reads a little bit more like constructive criticism than whining.)
It’s not dialog, but it is conversational, so the punctuation needs to fit that particular style.
Bottom line: relax and try to grasp the ideas, people. It’s not a newspaper, and it’s definitely not an English comp class. Sheesh.
Snaps! i finally figured it out!
Jeff, they loathe you because you are an academic with creds and you have turned on them!
you are supposed to be one of them!