Loss of Free Inquiry on Campus Betrays Liberal Legacy (UPDATED)
October 24, 2007 by Jason Steck
The newest big controversy about free speech on campus focuses on the case of a Hamline University graduate student in Minnesota who has been ordered to undergo psychological evaluation after expressing his political disagreements with campus diversity policies alongside a rather bone-headed reference to Virginia Tech. Although the student is a long-time gadfly who seems to revel in poking the Hamline administration with a stick, the case is important for precisely that reason. Freedom of speech is easy to support when the speech is politically correct or when dissent from political correctness is expressed with timidity and apology. It is when the opinions expressed directly disagree with the dominant ideology on campus that the commitment to real freedom of speech is put to the test.
Nonetheless, even with its Orwellian overtones of Stalinist referral to mental health treatment for the “thought crimes” of political dissent, the Hamline case does not strike to the real heart of the problem with freedom of speech — or more precisely, freedom of inquiry on college campuses today.
An example of the greater problem can be seen at a recent even at the University of California at Berkeley, where a speaker invited by the local College Republicans chapter as part of the rather laughably confrontational “Islamofascist Awareness Week” was subjected to repeated and intentional acts of disruption and threats of physical violence and intimidation by radical leftists with the specific goal of preventing expression they disagreed with. This ties in to a broader pattern of “disinviting” and other tactics of eliminating non-leftist expression from campus public squares. As the article notes, leftist events advertised alongside the non-leftist ones are not targeted for disruptions and threats.
The real issue here is not only freedom of speech, but freedom of inquiry. The purpose of a university education — and by extension the purpose of having public events on university campuses — is to provide students with a broad exposure to a range of ideas and perspectives. “Diversity” is supposed to be a core mission of the modern university because such diversity is thought to produce graduates that are more aware of the complex interplay of factors and perspectives that shape the world in the age of globalization. But if “diversity” is limited to skin colors and ethnic backgrounds, students’ exposure to “diversity” misses the all-important realm of differing ideas. They are left with courses that lean left, campus events that privilege leftist perspectives, and campus codes of speech and behavior that are often applied to remove non-leftist ideas from the mix. The result is a kind of trivial, slogan-driven leftism that is bereft of any real understanding or commitment and, more importantly, incapable of dealing with the ideological complexity of the real world. The university winds up failing in its most fundamental mission.
That the left is the focus of most criticism on this issue is not bias, but rather an unfortunate artifact of the facts on the ground on campuses today — as can be seen by reviewing the data available at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, it is overwhelmingly the political left that is implementing its particular brand of hostility to free speech by using coercion, threats, and power to censor. For all the screams from the left about censorship by the right in the post-9/11 era, it is difficult to find actual cases of such censorship. And the people who hue and cry about the evils of the United States and/or the “neocons” seem to be remarkably loud for people that are supposedly being censored. The right has its wannbe censors, to be sure, but they usually fighting in the quagmire of triviality that is popular culture rather than undermining the one set of institutions that is supposed to be the bulwark of intellectualism and free inquiry.
In the 1960s, the origins of the campus free speech movement lay within the political left. The reaction by moderates and conservatives to the left on this issue is not always arising out of ideological hostility, but rather out of disappointment and disillusionment. We had thought that this was one issue where liberalism and conservatism should and did have common cause. For myself, it is love for the liberal principle of free inquiry — a principle that too many post-modern leftists and radicals have betrayed — that motivates special condemnation towards the left.
It is time for some campus leftists and liberals to recapture their own moral and intellectual heritage.
UPDATE: In response to a user comment, I realized that campus censorship represents an additional departure from the root values of liberalism. Liberalism is founded upon the enlightenment, the belief in the power of individual human reason to discern truth. Yet, post-modern liberalism (or rather leftism) is fundamentally distrustful, in that it fears that unless intolerant ideas are suppressed by the power of the college administration or the rule of the mob, individual listeners will be unable to discern their flaws.
UPDATE: Just today, yet another incident of physical intimidation and mob action used to shut down a speaker for ideological reasons.
This is quite amazing. Remember that you sent me two books, as a present. In one of them this point is made as well: that liberals in academia are tolerant towards those who agree, but that progressivism in its core actually demands people to agree on everything. What are your thoughts on that?
The claim is too sweeping to be generally true. I agree that there is a serious problem in huge parts of academia with intolerance towards dissent. The answer is, however, also out there. There are a lot of professors of many different ideologies who embrace freedom of inquiry as a professional aspiration and who are deeply upset about the proliferation of leftist “direct action” and “activism” that undermines it.
I don’t agree that progressive politics innately demands conformity. I’ve known some committed progressives who are very open to free debate. The key difference seems to be whether or not they have bought into Marcuse’s throwing out of traditional liberal principles in favor of radical purity. Some progressives have. Others have resisted the siren song.
Disgusting, and in my opinion a betrayal of the meaning of liberalism. These people aren’t liberals, they are lefties, and that isn’t necessarily the same thing. A true liberal believes in diversity, of genders, races, sexual orientations, religions AND IDEAS. The idea is that you need not be homogeneous to coexist. Lefties claim to be liberals, but not all are, since they leave the “ideas” bit out (and some apparently the “religions” if you happen to be, say, a evangelical christian).
My high school was just like this. They claimed loud and long that they were liberal and tolerant. This of course was a lie, they were liberal and tolerant as long as the diversity stretched between liberal and radical liberal. You could be any color you wanted (though you had to be a bit apologetic if you were white, and even more so if you were a white male) but your IDEAS had to be pure. I think what little of me is conservative comes from backlash against that intolerant attitude.
No. Your conservative views are despite it.
But does that tolerance extend to others intolerance? … if you get what I mean.
The assumption that disagreement with a leftist view is, by definition, “intolerance” is a slander.
And it’s a slander to claim that was the intention of my very vague post.
Let me use a more concrete example to reword my question from #8.
Would it betray the liberal legacy to be intolerant of the idea that women should be denied the right to vote?
Are you really going to contend that denying women the right to vote is a representative, typical example of conservative viewpoints that are targeted for suppression on college campuses?
If you are saying that, then you have no basis to be offended about how I interpreted your first comment.
If not, your example is ill-chosen and irrelevant to the issue.
This is a critical point because one of the primary tools leftists use to justify their attempts at censorship on college campuses is to say that they are only opposing views that are “intolerant”. Given the wide range of conservative views whose suppression is justified under this rationale, it is necessary to explore exactly what leftists believe is the representative, typical conservative viewpoint necessitating such drastic response and to inquire whether there is any conservative viewpoint that would not be reinterpreted to be “intolerant” to justify its suppression.
In short, it is necessary to inquire as to whether leftist concerns about the promotion of “intolerant” views is based on a genuine understanding of ACTUAL conservative views or whether it is just an rhetorical trick they use, as you did above, Chris, to lump all views that disagree with theirs with views that are laughably on the fringe and, thus, to paint reasonable and unreasonable conservative views with the same brush.
So it’s your choice, Chris, whether to base your defense of anti-conservative censorship on actual conservative views or inaccurate stereotypes. Your intention is revealed by that choice.
No, I’m not contending that at all.
I’m just trying to find the theoretical limit of the tolerance prescribed by the liberal legacy.
Why not just concede that the FUNCTIONAL limit is not justified? Why change the subject?
Chris,
I would submit that there should be no limit of tolerance whatsoever towards intolerant views. The more airing they receive, the quicker they are exposed as poisonous and unacceptable. There is no better way to fuel the survival and spread of intolerant ideas than to try to supress them.
Yes, Alan, now that I think about it, that is another departure from the roots of liberalism. Liberalism is founded upon the enlightenment, the belief in the power of individual human reason to discern truth. Yet, post-modern liberalism (or rather leftism) is fundamentally distrustful, in that it fears that unless intolerant ideas are suppressed by the power of the college administration or the rule of the mob, individual listeners will be unable to discern their flaws.
Chris,
I think Jason is right to point out that if there’s a difference in the theoretical limit and the actual one (which IMO is true, and is due to the tendency for some liberals to define all conservative or religious ideas as intolerant), then there’s a problem.
And besides, even if your theoretical limit were applied as it should be, that would define the limit of ideas that the left should accept, not the limit of those that should be allowed to be expressed. To use your example, if there was a group that wanted to deny women the vote, and they wished to demonstrate or speak on a campus, the first amendment should grant them that right and the university in creating an environment for diverse viewpoints should allow it, no? There’s a big difference between endorsing an idea and permitting it to be expressed.
Alan,
Yeah, exactly. And if that’s the extent of the tolerance we’re discussing, then I have no quarrel with you guys.
There are some fundamentalist religious loons that appear from time to time on the Northrup Mall advocating stuff that would make your hair curl, real fire-and-brimstone, Fred Phelps-style stuff — stuff I find hateful and disgusting.
I think they have a constitutional right to do so.
I think any attempt by a mob to shout them down or intimidate or attack them physically would be contrary to basic liberal principles of free speech, inquiry, and reliance on individual reason.
I also think that they are NOT conservatives and that conservatives should not have to accept association with such people as the price of defending their own free speech rights.
American liberalism isn’t liberalism at all. It believes in big government whereas true liberalism does not.
Fascinating how the word ‘liberal’ had devolved in the US.
Michael,
American conservatism also has come to believe in a big and powerful government over the last 25 or so years.
But back to your original point. Liberalism is about the freedom and power of the individual. A large nanny-state is not necessarily antithetical to that in our modern world. Especially since classical liberalism is also concerned not just with big government, but any figures or organizations with great power. That includes corporations and churches.
If liberalism is the search for freedom from oppression, then a large government, if properly surveiled, would in many cases be preferrable to unaccountable coporate masters. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.
It is amusing that some people feel that one cannot be opposed, even strongly opposed, to an opinion (e.g. that women should not have the right to vote) without being “intolerant” of it. In short, that only agreement can be “tolerated.” Or was Jason simply raising a traditional straw man for this topic?
That particular violence to the language (which is actually what it is) is part of the reason that discussions of tolerance tend to disintegrate into yelling and name-calling. Because what it means is that there can be no tolerance for any differing opinion.
Personally, I would resist any move to remove women’s right to vote. But while I would be, if you will, intolerant of an attempt to take action in that regard, I cannot see that merely expressing such a stupid opinion needs to be met with anything other than civil counter-argument.
Maybe you should go back and see who actually brought that up before you accuse me of strawmanning.
Wrong. The error in naming that resulted in the label “neoconservative” may have created this misunderstanding, but it is a contrary to the real conservative tradition. Traditional conservatives (i.e. George Will) have been very loud in their criticism of the departure from conservative values in the last several years. Maybe it would be fair of you to give that consideration, Chris, before you go off painting with your overbroad brushes again and again and again and again.
When are you all going to figure out that conservative and “neoconservative” are two very different things?
Jason,
I guess if you want to put Bush1.0 and Reagan in the neocon category, you’d be correct.
And even if you do lump them in that category, I hear a lot in the Republican debates about how Reagan is the quintessential conservative. I’ve also heard that hero worship from many on the right who don’t consider themselves neocons.
Your argument is that Reagan was a believer in big government?
I think you should read Stockman’s book before you draw that conclusion.
And conservatives freaked out when the first President Bush agreed to tax increases to sustain an unsustainable welfare state.
Check this out Jason: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
That Reagan dude spent money like crazy.
Yes, Chris, I’m aware. The part of the story that you’re obviously NOT aware of is why I mentioned the Stockman book.
Stockman was Reagan’s budget director. The spending level that was had was not what the Reagan administration considered its preferred policy.
Furthermore, to hold all “conservatives” responsible for what the Reagan administration was forced into budget-wise is grossly unfair. Do you think it is possible for you to let conservatives define their OWN beliefs once in a while?
Reagan’s gov’t spends like crazy (at least with his consent, if not by design) > big spending gov’t is the same as big gov’t > conservatives worship Reagan > conservatives elect his VP, and the VPs son > conservatives embrace big gov’t philosophy
Chris: there are other aspects of Reagan’s legacy that are respected by conservatives. Big spending isn’t necessarily the same as big govt when you take into account that much of it was on the military (which helped end the Cold War). The domestic spending, and Reagan’s inability (or unwillingness) to curb it is not something that conservatives want their candidates to emulate. And with regard to that domestic spending, there was some progress toward devolving programs back to the states to shrink the federal bureaucracies- and the debates which began under Reagan helped lead to welfare reform in the 90s.
C Stanley,
I’m gonna have to call you on this. You’re pretending that the military is not part of the government. That’s true, wartime or not.
Besides, conservatives that are worried about government interference in their lives should also fear a large and powerful military that answers to that government.
Chris: I’m only pointing out that conservatives do view military spending differently than domestic entitlement spending- due to the belief that defense is the legitimate role of the federal govt and some of the other functions related to domestic spending are not.
Whether or not you agree with that is a different story, and even conservatives take that view to varying degrees. But it’s still important to know that people who talk about small government are using that as shorthand (usually) for lower domestic spending and less federal bureaucracy- so it’s not necessarily shorthand for lower spending overall.
C Stanley,
I appreciate what you’re saying, and I know exactly what you mean. But the conservatives who think increasing the size of the military does not increase the size of the government are simply wrong.
That’s why Reagan was for big government, he just wanted his big government to spend more (relatively speaking) on the military.
I wish liberals would show a little less tolerance of groups like the Islamists in the Muslim Students Association but their intolerance seems to extend only to mainstream conservatives and Christians.
Chris,
Big government isn’t just about raw expenditures - though that is important - it is also about interference in the lives of citizens from unaccountable federal bureaucrats. Having more military personnel available doesn’t tend to affect the lives of individual citizens the way that, say, expanding the Department of Education’s role does.
Exactly and Reagan did a great job in that regard.
You guys are talking over my head, but I do know that whatever anyone wants to name one side or the other, the minute a person starts to implement a “solution” that persecutes a minority, we no longer have a Republic! You can talk and should be allowed to, but don’t go tryin’ to force your way on folks.
To the point of expenditures by the Gov’t, Why in gods name does a member of the Royal family of Lichtenstein get farm payment benefits from the U.S. Gov’t???? and for NOT growing crops! What idiots came up with this idea????
Big government isn’t just about raw expenditures - though that is important - it is also about interference in the lives of citizens from unaccountable federal bureaucrats.
Except that those raw expenditures are always interference in the lives of citizens. It’s money taken from our pockets.
Woops… left out the blockquote in that last comment…
Should be>>>>>>
Except that those raw expenditures are always interference in the lives of citizens. It’s money taken from our pockets.