There was a point, not so very long ago, when students and outside speakers advocating gay legal equality might not have been welcomed on campuses. That model of closed-mindedness isn’t something you might suppose those calling themselves “progressives” would aspire to emulate.
Later, when being gay was no longer anathema but support for same-sex marriage was a decidedly minority position (even on liberal campuses), discussions of marriage equality weren’t closed down. An open engage of conflicting ideas was viewed as central to a liberal education.
But today, progressives believe it is their responsibility to make sure no views outside their echo chamber, including conservative speakers and student op-eds, are permitted, lest they mislead those whose minds are not completely closed. Two cases in point, from Wesleyan University and at Williams College, expose the barely concealed authoritarianism that lurks behind much of progressive activism.
More. Feminist pioneer and committed leftist Germaine Greer is the wrong kind of feminist/leftist (not supportive of transgender rights). So:
While debate in a University should be encouraged, hosting a speaker with such problematic and hateful views towards marginalised and vulnerable groups is dangerous.
Brendan O’Neill responded:
The Cardiff censors say Greer’s ideas are ‘problematic’. That is what the PC say instead of ‘haram’.
Furthermore. The Williams student group that invited and then disinvited conservative author Suzanne Venker later reinvited her after being embarrassed over the fallout that followed their caving in to the student censors. At that point, Venker had apparently had enough and declined.
Late addition. Robby Soave writes at reason.com, citing Colorado College’s student newspaper, The Catalyst, that LGBT student activists at the college are demanding that the movie “Stonewall” is too offensive to be shown on campus by the college’s Film and Media Studies Department, which wanted to moderate a discussion about the controversy. Instead, they are demanding that the administration cancel the upcoming screening.
“I think Colorado College should cancel the screening because the safety and well-being of queer and trans students surpasses the importance of a critical discussion,” one student told The Catalyst. Said another: “If CC is really as dedicated to diversity and inclusion, they would never have agreed to screen a film that queer students have repeatedly stated is a threat to our identity and our safety. … It is fallacious to equate the rights of students to view a movie with the rights of students to exist free of violence.”
Soave comments regarding the students’ response to the film, directed by openly gay filmmaker Roland Emmerich, which positively depicts gay people fighting for equality in 1969:
That’s right: the film isn’t merely offensive to gay and trans students (despite having a truly gay-affirming message), it’s actively dangerous to their physical well-being…. This is a complaint emotionally-coddled students often make: that some kind of expression is so triggering that allowing it to proceed constitutes an act of violence. Such complaints are usually pure hyperbole, but hyperbole doesn’t even begin to cover the opinions of Colorado College’s precious snowflakes.
22 Comments for “The Progessive Campus Anti-Speech Movement”
posted by Houndentenor on
Agreed. I don’t like this trend AT ALL. If you are concerned that a speaker is expressing a point of view you don’t like, then get someone with that point of view to speak as well. Upset that Greer isn’t supportive enough of trans people? Get Laverne Cox or someone like that to speak to express that point of view.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
While I strongly believe that the marketplace of ideas should be robust, and particularly in colleges and universities, I don’t see a remedy when the marketplace of ideas is limited by students, faculty or administration.
That is particularly true with respect to private colleges and universities. I am extremely reluctant to monitor or regulate speech on private colleges and universities.
It seems to me that this is a matter for colleges and universities to deal with without our involvement.
posted by Houndentenor on
Well I’m not sure how involved we are, but we have every right to comment. Now if you mean like Ben Carson’s promise to cut off funding from schools that are too liberal, I agree (and would also agree if some Democrat promised to do the same to schools that were conservative).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Well I’m not sure how involved we are, but we have every right to comment. Now if you mean like Ben Carson’s promise to cut off funding from schools that are too liberal, I agree (and would also agree if some Democrat promised to do the same to schools that were conservative).
Of course we can comment, but to what end?
Stephen frequently points out that “progressive” student groups sometimes make a fuss over speakers invited to campus (e.g. “The College-Based Anti-Free-Speech Movement“, March 22, 2015, and “A Fundamental Right to Offend“, January 9, 2015, “Calls to Ban ‘Hate Speech’ Spiral On“, June 6, 2014).
He points to this as evidence of “the barely concealed authoritarianism that lurks behind much of progressive activism”. I don’t know, maybe so, maybe not. It sounds more like students being immature jerks to me than a serious threat to free speech.
The key question that I ask is “What’s the remedy?” If there is no remedy, then the complaint is just a complaint.
I think that trying to suppress any point of view that falls within the range of responsible academic thought on a college or university campus is wrongheaded. You do too, it seems, and Stephen certainly does when it comes to suppressing a conservative point of view. But I don’t think that there is much to say unless it is the institution (and not just a bunch of loud students making a fuss) who is doing the suppression, as in cases where the institution requires pre-approval of speakers invited to campus, has policies that determine whether or not particular speakers or points of view can be invited to campus, or policies that limit “offensive” speech or action.
Even then, though, I think that private colleges and universities should have the freedom to create the student/academic environment that best fits their educational model, whatever that might be. To my mind, that’s true for ultra-liberal schools like Oberlin, for conservative Christian schools like Liberty University, and for private colleges and universities across the board.
Public colleges and universities are a different matter. I think that we have the obligation to insist that public institutions operate under the rules that govern governments — open to all, discriminating against none, with a broad, balanced curriculum ranging across the gamut of the marketplace of ideas. Public universities offer the full range of responsible thinking, from radical left to radical right.
posted by Houndentenor on
The remedy to these shenanigans is calling attention to them. Maybe public embarrassment will be enough for school administrations to stop catering to a few protests over a speaker.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The remedy to these shenanigans is calling attention to them. Maybe public embarrassment will be enough for school administrations to stop catering to a few protests over a speaker.
I believe, as you seem to believe, in rigorous speech on campus. As I see things, college and university students should be exposed to ideas, popular or not, palatable or not, mainstream or not, offensive or not, and colleges and universities should be places were all kinds of ideas are explored, discussed and, when needs be, hotly debated, if the students are to grow and mature intellectually.
How else can they test their ideas and learn to hold their own in the marketplace of ideas?
So I would like to see all colleges and universities (private or public) insist on rigorous intellectual discussion/debate and intellectual openness. The University of Chicago, it seems to me, has developed a model for encouraging rigorous intellectual debate.
But I say that with a caution. All colleges and universities are not alike. Private colleges and universities need not agree, and we should be careful about insisting that they do. Colleges and universities with an ideological or religious bent may consider limitations on campus speech important to fulfillment of their educational mission, for one reason or another, and that should be, it seems to me, up to them.
To insist otherwise is to set ourselves up as self-righteous arbitrars of what should, and should not, be done on college and university campuses, manifesting the very traits of which we complain.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I went to TCU — a private church-affiliated university. That was 30 years ago, but the same sort of shenanigans were happening back then as well… it’s just that there was no social media to amplify them.
The objecting parties invariably were evangelicals (Southern Baptists, mostly) that got their panties in a twist any time there was any sort of speaker, film or topic that they deemed controversial (read un-Christian).
Hence as campus film committee chair, I was castigated for booking films like “Barbarella” (Jane Fonda shows some titty in the opening scene); “Life of Brian” (blasphemy); & “Star Trek the Motion Picture” (godless secularism).
Our speakers committee was pressured to not invite Vincent Price of all people, because he was touring as Oscar Wilde at the time.
Fortunately, school administrators were willing to keep most of that nonsense away from us — but it was an interesting object lesson… That said, I hear that the same nonsense is still happening — and a bit more heated in some cases — especially post Obergefell because TCU is Texas “Christian”. (Nevermind that the church affiliation (loose) is with the Church of Christ which is LGBT-affirming and recognizes same-sex unions.)
Just thought I throw this out there since it seems we only really hear from aggrieved conservatives.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Just thought I throw this out there since it seems we only really hear from aggrieved conservatives.
Although the conservative outrage machine is in full tilt about “the barely concealed authoritarianism that lurks behind much of progressive activism“, the issue has an issue for several years, addressed by liberals as well.
This isn’t just the usual conservative whining. It is not a major problem, but it is real enough that a number of colleges and universities are, as I understand it, issuing statements similar to the University of Chicago statement I referenced in my earlier comment.
What puzzles me is why more institutions aren’t following Chicago’s lead. I’m with President Obama on this one — students are being unnecessarily coddled, and that’s not a good thing.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Let’s also not forget the lawsuits from the conservative, anti-equality right wing that insist that curricula for various pursuits (like counseling & psychotherapy) be amended to allow students to forswear having follow the rules for treating LGBT patients… because blah, blah, religious freedom, blah, blah.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Wow.
From my experience this is often pretty standard fair for a certain group of students — Democrats, Republicans, Independents, left and right-wing. Too many youngesters have grown up thinking that what happens on TV or radio call in shows, amounts to serious debate. With very few exceptions the “debate” seen on TV or radio call in shows, has very little to do with serious debate.
posted by Houndentenor on
“Debate” these days is mostly either recitations of talking points (whether they relate to the question asked or not) or people screaming over each other. Rational discussion has all but disappeared. Let a speaker you don’t like speak. Protest if you want. Demand a speaker with a different point of view! But blocking them (especially once they have been invited) just comes off as childish. If you can block the speakers you don’t like, won’t another group be able to do the same with the ones you invite? Free speech means people get to say things you don’t like.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—The Cardiff censors say Greer’s ideas are ‘problematic’. That is what the PC say instead of ‘haram’.
If you think that the only young liberals have a problem with having a serious debate about emotional, even controversial issues, you are being very silly. The issue is more a question of youth and being raised on a steady diet of talk radio and cable news shows pretending to be capable of serious debate.
While far from perfect, check out the Q & A Television series on the ABC (Australian network). They have made some mistake, but they actually make a serious effort to have a serious debate/discussion about current events and the like. It is miles above and beyond what passes for a tv debate in America.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The issue is more a question of youth and being raised on a steady diet of talk radio and cable news shows pretending to be capable of serious debate.
I think that you are right about this, and I don’t think that the problem is limited to younger people.
The explosion of information available to us through the internet and the proliferation of television/radio outlets is astonishing to someone my age.
I compare the information services I now enjoy (access to a million books through our state public library system, the ability to read just about any newspaper/magazine in the country with a click or two, wikis, online books, a couple of hundred TV channels, online information about just about anything, and so on) with what was available to me in the 1950’s and 1960’s, and, well, there is no comparison. I don’t take advantage of all of it (my TV watching, for example, is pretty much confined to NASCAR) but it is all available, which was not true when I was your age.
The information explosion is a good thing, for the most part. But it comes at a price, as you point out. Because information media is now narrow-band (that is, targeted to a specific demographic) rather than broad-band (that is, targeted to the general population), it is possible to live entirely within an information cocoon.
I have friends who do so. One gets almost all of his information from Christian radio, his Bible church, and Christian media of one sort and another. Another picks up most of his information from “rant radio” (a local station that runs right-wing nutcase talk shows 24-7-365). Another has Fox News on for hours a day. Another thinks that the sun rises and sets on Rachael Maddow, reads the Cap Times (a liberal Madison newspaper) and learns all she knows about conservatives from those and other similar sources. Studies suggest that a relatively large and growing number of people live in an information cocoon.
Wrap yourself up in a cocoon long enough and you will end up incapable of understanding that another point of view exists, let alone might have something valuable to contribute to the national discussion.
posted by JohnInCA on
I think it’s funny.
The same person a couple of days ago that was going on about the Freedom of Association of bakers now wants to deny that to schools and students.
Or is it only permissible expressions of constitutional freedoms when a private organization (which the two cited schools are) shuts *gay* people out?
Whatever. There’s no rhetorical consistency here, as seen by the acceptance of non-discrimination laws for everything *but* gay people, and by claiming that the “acceptable” way for a gay couple to react/retaliate against exclusion being boycotts and social condemnation … except when it works, whereupon it becomes censorship.
posted by Jorge on
From the article’s quote on the petition:
“Trans-exclusionary views should have no place in feminism or society.”
Merely wishing it does not make it so. In fact, it guarantees the opposite.
“Such attitudes contribute to the high levels of stigma, hatred and violence towards trans people – particularly trans women – both in the UK and across the world.”
Saying it does not make it so, either. This is the first time I’ve ever heard an accusation that a woman-headed society is responsible for murderous intolerance.
I don’t see a remedy when the marketplace of ideas is limited by students, faculty or administration.
*Shrug.* That’s probably because you don’t have a hair-trigger ‘demand boycott’ urge.
I think it’s funny.
The same person a couple of days ago that was going on about the Freedom of Association of bakers now wants to deny that to schools and students.
Mmm.
Really, the only thing one can do is wait for the opportunity to interpose oneself between a mob of crazy people and a group of good people. Traveling across half the county at a moment’s notice like some people (and it’s usually the crazies) like to do isn’t really an option.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
–Saying it does not make it so, either. This is the first time I’ve ever heard an accusation that a woman-headed society is responsible for murderous intolerance.
If this is really the first time, then you have not been paying much attention to the mass media over the past few decades. Conservative talk radio (as just one example) helped to popularize the term “feminist nazi”, in order to pretty much shut down the debate about just about any women’s right or any gender rights issue.
The big picture problem is that lots of people simply do not know how to have a serious and intelligent debate with someone. This is (largely) because of things like talk radio and ‘talking heads’ that appear on cable news programs.
posted by Jorge on
Conservative talk radio (as just one example) helped to popularize the term “feminist nazi” in order to pretty much shut down the debate about just about any women’s right or any gender rights issue.
I’ve always understood Femi-Nazi as a reference to censorship and in-group mentality. It is a valid criticism of the movement. Never has the term been used to imply murder.
This is the first time I’ve ever heard an accusation that a woman-headed society is responsible for murderous intolerance. Not only that, it is also the first time both you have heard such an accusation, else your replies would have stayed on topic, and provided an example.
If this is really the first time, then you have not been paying much attention to the mass media over the past few decades. Conservative ”
Beverly LaHay
Phyllis Schlafly
just to mention two prominent intolerant gay-bashing CONSERVATIVES.
Perhaps you’re right. I think it’s more likely that if you remember anything anyone has ever said about those two (one of whom I’ve never even heard of) other than their bylines, your mass media consumption is a little far out into the weeds.
posted by Kosh III on
Beverly and Tim LaHaye are VERY prominent in right-wing Protestant circles and have been for decades.
The fact that you don’t know about them speaks more about your deficiencies.
posted by Jorge on
Beverly and Tim LaHaye are VERY prominent in right-wing Protestant circles and have been for decades.
The fact that you don’t know about them speaks more about your deficiencies.
“Impossible.”
“Why?”
“My grandson is the pride of Highgarden. The most desirable bachelor in all the seven kingdoms. Your daughter…”
“Is rich. The most beautiful woman all seven kingdoms, and the mother of the king.”
“Old.”
“Old?”
“Old. I’m something of an expert on the subject.”
I have to ask, how did you know which old hag I was talking about if you didn’t think one was more obscure than the other?
posted by Kosh III on
“This is the first time I’ve ever heard an accusation that a woman-headed society is responsible for murderous intolerance.
If this is really the first time, then you have not been paying much attention to the mass media over the past few decades. Conservative ”
Beverly LaHay
Phyllis Schlafly
just to mention two prominent intolerant gay-bashing CONSERVATIVES.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
A University should encourage debate in a manner that is civil and constructive. That is quite different from a mere shouting match, or much of what passes for “debate” on talk radio shows or cable news shows.
People who talk about the status of “free speech” and “free debate” on campus need to remember that young conservatives, liberals, libertarians, greens, socialists, etc. might lack the skills needed to have a civil debate, and may just be interested in stirring up a bit of trouble, in order to impress a member of the same sex or opposite sex.
I am not sure that the comparison made between “PC” with “Haram” (basically means, “sinful” in Arabic) is entirely accurate. It comes off like privileged, middle class kids living in post-industrial nations complaining that their pot dealer is closed on the Sabbath.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
“But today, progressives believe it is their responsibility to make sure no views outside their echo chamber, including conservative speakers and student op-eds, are permitted…”
OK, you have not really established that this is part of some vast left-wing, student conspiracy. It is more likely then not a product of young people — across the political spectrum — not being taught good debating skills or thinking that what they see on cable news or Talk radio or (sadly) a fair number of primary presidential debates is what civil debate is suppose to be.
This one particular example refers to a University in Cardiff (Which, made by think of Torchwood) which is in the U.K.
Least anything worry that political debate is somehow dead in the U.K., I would encourage people to check out the robust Q&A Parliamentary sessions (they sometimes get aired on C-SPAN) or the simple fact that current House of Commons has representatives from 12 different political parties. Most of these parties probably have student clubs.
One of the reasons that the U.K. (a stable two-party system) has had such political diversity in the House of Commons (which would seem to have some relationship to say, freedom of speech) is that the petitioning/fee requirements for an individual candidate or a political party are reasonable….that and a different attitude from much of the media.
In the U.S., it is absurdly expensive and complicated for an third or fourth party to attempt to field candidates in every House or Senate campaign. The result is that these parties often have to spend quite a bit of time and money trying to jump through the various legal holes, and spending quite a bit of time in litigation.