There is no organization that’s done more to fight for freedom of speech on American campuses over the past 20 years than FIRE, The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
I have only personal observation, but no data to support my hypothesis. I feel like during the early 2000’s we passed a critical mass in a change in child care that had been building since the 1980’s.
More and more college bound children were raised from birth through college age with no extensive time playing with other children WITHOUT adult supervision. Virtually all of their waking time was spent under adult supervision in day care, pre-K, kindergarten, school, and adult organized and supervised activities, play dates, etc. Other than some inner-city basketball courts, the places for unsupervised child interaction have almost ceased exist. For every two or three children playing in a park or playground there is one adult watching. At the slightest hint of conflict or risk of even the slightest physical harm or emotional trauma, the adults swoop in to intervene.
Accordingly, at some point, we reached a critical mass of college enrollees who, while they feel the natural adolescent impulse for independence, also feel the need to remain in the water in which they have swum their entire lives—someone in authority watching over and protecting them from any risk of physical harm or emotional upset.
It is little wonder that they rebel if they feel those in authority (be that those who run the university or those who run the company) are not so protecting them physical and emotional danger. And they express their frustration as toddlers would by shouting and even lashing out physically because they never learned self-protection and conflict resolution in the rough and tumble of free play among children.
Great post. I would also add that a part of the issues with college bound children come from the fact that they were also taught their opinion was always the correct one. Because their parents tried to keep their child's life conflict free, said child probably never heard, "no, I don't agree with you. Your opinion is wrong." And if they did, that form of negativity was removed from their lives.
I completely agree that parental sheltering from emotional trauma included too much affirmation of child opinions. Moreover, there appears too much seeking of children's opinions. In limited circumstances it is reasonable to ask small children what they want to do and then let the family's activities be so guides. But with parents in the last two decades it it seems excessively frequent.
Oh Mr. Lukianoff... and I disagree with you regarding IHRA definition of anti-semitism: "I hate The Church but I have no problem with Catholics." That is a contradiction. Judaism is defined by its connection to Israel precisely as Catholicism is defined by its connection to the Vatican and the Pope and The Church in general. That lousy Pope and that crooked Vatican, well that is one thing but I think my acquaintances who go to Mass on Sunday are just dandy people; so I am not anti-Catholic at all. See? Many reasonable Jewish people are critical of Israel in innumerable ways, just like many reasonable Catholics are critical of the Vatican. If you hate the Church however, you hate the core of every Catholic, precisely the way anti-Zionism is hating the core of every Jew. I hope you and FIRE see your way to embrace the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Oh, I detest your mom too, but you seem OK. Would you buy that? (I am certain I would like your mom however, because I like the way you think. Israel is my mother.)
I have been a Philosophy professor for over 40 years, and from my perspective much of the censorship is just subterfuge. American Academia is stealing money from our students and their families, and so long as we professors remain terrified of the administrators, so long as we continue to cower and play the pronoun games and all the rest of these absurdities, this thievery will continue. Academia has become a fraudulent institution where students are manipulated and treated like angry customers and truth has become a flavor, perpetually adjusted to appeal to the tastes of the customers who are systematically cheated. For my very small part I have simply refused to play the pronoun game. It is not courageous, but at least it is something. Perhaps God is dead for most, but Truth is very much alive, and I thank God I still feel guilt when I attempt to teach what I know is not true.
This was great interview, but I was left with one burning question. Mr. Lukianoff mentions how things seemed to change over night in 2014, but does not explain why it changed at that moment in time. What was going on in our government / society that allowed for things to change on campus seemingly over night? I wish the interview had dug a little deeper to help our (my) understanding of these changes.
At about the 53 minute mark, Bari asks (paraphrasing) "which side is worse - left or right?" Greg, more or less, says that both sides are equally crazy with censorship. Over the course of the interview, dozens of examples of left-wing censorship are given, but I didn't hear any examples of right-wing censorship. Did I miss even one contemporary example from the right?
The article focused on the American campus where the left is dominant and instances of outrageous behavior makes the news. Its harder to cite comparable resonant examples of campus misbehavior from the far right who have no positions of power on campus. If you change issues, and focus on the right's discussion of the so called "election steal" you can easily find such censorship. See Bari's Election Denial: A Roundtable.
It is more than "so called". While there is no "smoking gun" (yet, and it will likely be many, many years before something comes out), there is a lot of evidence that the 2020 election wasn't very clean (to put it nicely). I still can't figure out how three swing states went dark around midnight and when they came back up around 3 am the vote tally changed from strongly favoring Trump to slightly favoring Biden. That's just one example. Anyway, Biden is in office and that's not going to change until 2024. I'm not asking for a change in the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania now, I'm asking for some decent explanations of what went on. "Shut up you sore loser, racist, and bigot." doesn't work for me. Of course, there will be none. I keep saying to Republicans: "Quit whining and play the game the same way Dems are. You'll never be held accountable, so do what you need to to win. Elections are a blood sport, not bean bag."
And, why are Dems trying so damn hard to get federal election legislation passed when, according to them, the 2020 elections were the fairest, most transparent in history. Actions and words are telling very different stories.
The piece I referenced contained information about Republican lawmakers afraid to voice their opinions and state facts which would irritate conservatives and prompt a back lash..
If you would like academic examples of censorship, search on the name of prominent conservative universities and the the word "censorship." A few examples usually pop-up in the top ten responses. I don't want to finger specific universities or incidents for fear I might pick a bad example.
Or save yourself the work and look at Neil Kellen's rant above. According to Neil, I'm not allowed to doubt publicly that the 2020 election was stolen even if, as Neil says, there is 'no "smoking gun' after nearly two years of fruitless research to prove the steal and numerous unsuccessful legal proceedings including the Arizona Republican recount of the Maricopa County results where they found more votes for Biden than the State's recount of the same election.
Based on my on-line experience, if I wrote similar heresies in a Telegram chat with my MAGA acquittances, I would be attacked more vigorously and castigated as a RINO (Republican in Name Only) and maybe even called a PINO (Patriot in Name Only).
One also may not highlight unambiguous factual mistakes in canonical works such as "2,000 Mules" without being insulted and your motives doubted.
Not to mention, as Lukianoff himself says a couple of times in the interview, colleges and universities are disproportionately left wing..... so even if both sides were equally bad today (which I don't agree with but let's assume that's the case), with all the college graduates who will continue to enter the workforce it will become obvious the left will be far worse with censorship.
My brother who teaches at a university also has this astonishing propensity. He dies on the hill named "Left and Right are equally bad about censorship" without ever providing any evidence of REAL right-wing censorship. The best he could come up with was Jesse Goldberg, who went on an unhinged violent rant about the police and was disciplined for it.
I think honesty, industry and fair-mindedness are all equally important for a civil and prosperous society. Of course we all need the 2% who are geniuses. We would not be communicating as we do without them and we couldn’t safely travel the world or over most bridges.
thanks for a terrific show! the concept that those who attack free speech are promptly 'sent to Mongolia' is a new one to me; it appears to stand up under scrutiny.
In 77 , I was at The Chicago Federal Building when (the ACLU defended) Nazis spoke race hate to an angry large and possibly violent crowd. These fascists were delivered by and protected by Chicago's finest . The Cowards were going to march through Skokie at first but word got out that defenders (JDL and others)were going to gun them down in the street. Seeing these Nazi Cowards huddling behind cops like weaklings spoke volumes and was made famous in The Blues Bros Movie (Illinois Nazis LOL)
The history lesson on how we got to this point was quite illuminating. Had no idea this had been going on as long as it has. It seems like it came out of now where just a few years ago and then accelerated with the covid lockdowns. I especially liked how Greg tied what is happening to cognitive mental health issues. The woke require that others use the right words ensure a their personal happniess or to justify their identity. Those who require this will be forever miserable, as no one can make another person happy or justify their identity. That comes from within. It is sad to see so many people buying into a religion of misery. Namaste.
“There is no organization that’s done more to fight for freedom of speech on American campuses over the past 20 years than FIRE” This sounds like they are in favor of freedom of speech.
But then this sentence “If you care deeply about the First Amendment and a robust culture of free speech, FIRE is the kind of organization you hope will go out of business.”
Everything. They will go out of business when they are no longer needed. But it was a dumb thing to say because it confused you. Being clear, concise and direct is out of style.
I think maybe what she means is that you hope it goes out of business because civilization as a whole cannot imagine a society not believing in freedom of speech ... hence no reason for FIRE to exist?
This took me a few reads to get, the sentence flow is awkward. But I think I agree with your reasoning here.
Hoping FIRE would go out of business is to mean that it would be good if it wasn't needed in the first place. In other words, in a perfect world where everyone intrinsically valued free speech, we shouldn't even need FIRE.
No. You are being logical, but that’s not what the author meant. But your mistake is understandable. Checking one’s work is no longer a job requirement. If I sound like a grumpy old man, it’s because I love English composition and hate seeing it being destroyed.
Yeah...Bari must have written this one in a hurry. She also says
"And the organization has announced a goal of $75 million in order to pick up the flag the ACLU has put down by becoming the premier civil liberties organization in America."
One way this reads is that, by "...put[ting] down the flag", ACLU has "...becom[e] the premier civil liberties organization in America," which I'm pretty sure isn't what she meant to say.
Indefinite antecedent, like "dripping with gravy, she served the roast."
I have only personal observation, but no data to support my hypothesis. I feel like during the early 2000’s we passed a critical mass in a change in child care that had been building since the 1980’s.
More and more college bound children were raised from birth through college age with no extensive time playing with other children WITHOUT adult supervision. Virtually all of their waking time was spent under adult supervision in day care, pre-K, kindergarten, school, and adult organized and supervised activities, play dates, etc. Other than some inner-city basketball courts, the places for unsupervised child interaction have almost ceased exist. For every two or three children playing in a park or playground there is one adult watching. At the slightest hint of conflict or risk of even the slightest physical harm or emotional trauma, the adults swoop in to intervene.
Accordingly, at some point, we reached a critical mass of college enrollees who, while they feel the natural adolescent impulse for independence, also feel the need to remain in the water in which they have swum their entire lives—someone in authority watching over and protecting them from any risk of physical harm or emotional upset.
It is little wonder that they rebel if they feel those in authority (be that those who run the university or those who run the company) are not so protecting them physical and emotional danger. And they express their frustration as toddlers would by shouting and even lashing out physically because they never learned self-protection and conflict resolution in the rough and tumble of free play among children.
Great post. I would also add that a part of the issues with college bound children come from the fact that they were also taught their opinion was always the correct one. Because their parents tried to keep their child's life conflict free, said child probably never heard, "no, I don't agree with you. Your opinion is wrong." And if they did, that form of negativity was removed from their lives.
I completely agree that parental sheltering from emotional trauma included too much affirmation of child opinions. Moreover, there appears too much seeking of children's opinions. In limited circumstances it is reasonable to ask small children what they want to do and then let the family's activities be so guides. But with parents in the last two decades it it seems excessively frequent.
Gender Affirming Care is an extreme example of this and hopefully will be obsoleted by its failures.
Oh Mr. Lukianoff... and I disagree with you regarding IHRA definition of anti-semitism: "I hate The Church but I have no problem with Catholics." That is a contradiction. Judaism is defined by its connection to Israel precisely as Catholicism is defined by its connection to the Vatican and the Pope and The Church in general. That lousy Pope and that crooked Vatican, well that is one thing but I think my acquaintances who go to Mass on Sunday are just dandy people; so I am not anti-Catholic at all. See? Many reasonable Jewish people are critical of Israel in innumerable ways, just like many reasonable Catholics are critical of the Vatican. If you hate the Church however, you hate the core of every Catholic, precisely the way anti-Zionism is hating the core of every Jew. I hope you and FIRE see your way to embrace the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Oh, I detest your mom too, but you seem OK. Would you buy that? (I am certain I would like your mom however, because I like the way you think. Israel is my mother.)
I have been a Philosophy professor for over 40 years, and from my perspective much of the censorship is just subterfuge. American Academia is stealing money from our students and their families, and so long as we professors remain terrified of the administrators, so long as we continue to cower and play the pronoun games and all the rest of these absurdities, this thievery will continue. Academia has become a fraudulent institution where students are manipulated and treated like angry customers and truth has become a flavor, perpetually adjusted to appeal to the tastes of the customers who are systematically cheated. For my very small part I have simply refused to play the pronoun game. It is not courageous, but at least it is something. Perhaps God is dead for most, but Truth is very much alive, and I thank God I still feel guilt when I attempt to teach what I know is not true.
This was great interview, but I was left with one burning question. Mr. Lukianoff mentions how things seemed to change over night in 2014, but does not explain why it changed at that moment in time. What was going on in our government / society that allowed for things to change on campus seemingly over night? I wish the interview had dug a little deeper to help our (my) understanding of these changes.
At about the 53 minute mark, Bari asks (paraphrasing) "which side is worse - left or right?" Greg, more or less, says that both sides are equally crazy with censorship. Over the course of the interview, dozens of examples of left-wing censorship are given, but I didn't hear any examples of right-wing censorship. Did I miss even one contemporary example from the right?
The article focused on the American campus where the left is dominant and instances of outrageous behavior makes the news. Its harder to cite comparable resonant examples of campus misbehavior from the far right who have no positions of power on campus. If you change issues, and focus on the right's discussion of the so called "election steal" you can easily find such censorship. See Bari's Election Denial: A Roundtable.
It is more than "so called". While there is no "smoking gun" (yet, and it will likely be many, many years before something comes out), there is a lot of evidence that the 2020 election wasn't very clean (to put it nicely). I still can't figure out how three swing states went dark around midnight and when they came back up around 3 am the vote tally changed from strongly favoring Trump to slightly favoring Biden. That's just one example. Anyway, Biden is in office and that's not going to change until 2024. I'm not asking for a change in the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania now, I'm asking for some decent explanations of what went on. "Shut up you sore loser, racist, and bigot." doesn't work for me. Of course, there will be none. I keep saying to Republicans: "Quit whining and play the game the same way Dems are. You'll never be held accountable, so do what you need to to win. Elections are a blood sport, not bean bag."
And, why are Dems trying so damn hard to get federal election legislation passed when, according to them, the 2020 elections were the fairest, most transparent in history. Actions and words are telling very different stories.
RS, I just re-listened to the Roundtable, and could not find an example of the censorship by the right. Could you be more specific? Thanks.
Robert, As for specific examples:
The piece I referenced contained information about Republican lawmakers afraid to voice their opinions and state facts which would irritate conservatives and prompt a back lash..
If you would like academic examples of censorship, search on the name of prominent conservative universities and the the word "censorship." A few examples usually pop-up in the top ten responses. I don't want to finger specific universities or incidents for fear I might pick a bad example.
Or save yourself the work and look at Neil Kellen's rant above. According to Neil, I'm not allowed to doubt publicly that the 2020 election was stolen even if, as Neil says, there is 'no "smoking gun' after nearly two years of fruitless research to prove the steal and numerous unsuccessful legal proceedings including the Arizona Republican recount of the Maricopa County results where they found more votes for Biden than the State's recount of the same election.
Based on my on-line experience, if I wrote similar heresies in a Telegram chat with my MAGA acquittances, I would be attacked more vigorously and castigated as a RINO (Republican in Name Only) and maybe even called a PINO (Patriot in Name Only).
One also may not highlight unambiguous factual mistakes in canonical works such as "2,000 Mules" without being insulted and your motives doubted.
I think the answer to your question is that the Left today has the power to enforce its censorship ideas. The Right, for the most part, doesn't.
Bingo!
Not to mention, as Lukianoff himself says a couple of times in the interview, colleges and universities are disproportionately left wing..... so even if both sides were equally bad today (which I don't agree with but let's assume that's the case), with all the college graduates who will continue to enter the workforce it will become obvious the left will be far worse with censorship.
"disproportionately" is a vast understatement...
My brother who teaches at a university also has this astonishing propensity. He dies on the hill named "Left and Right are equally bad about censorship" without ever providing any evidence of REAL right-wing censorship. The best he could come up with was Jesse Goldberg, who went on an unhinged violent rant about the police and was disciplined for it.
Agree - the left has gone Orwellian.
I think the Right should go on an imaginable fundraising campaign to develop a Hillsdale/Austin, in every state.
It's time for an education revolution.
Agree! Thanks to someone mentioning Hillsdale on this site, I have been taking their free courses and learning so much!
I think honesty, industry and fair-mindedness are all equally important for a civil and prosperous society. Of course we all need the 2% who are geniuses. We would not be communicating as we do without them and we couldn’t safely travel the world or over most bridges.
good luck, just reading about Hunter Biden;s laptop at the tablet, its depressing but slowly but surely info can get out.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-national-tragedy-of-hunter-bidens-laptop
thanks for a terrific show! the concept that those who attack free speech are promptly 'sent to Mongolia' is a new one to me; it appears to stand up under scrutiny.
In 77 , I was at The Chicago Federal Building when (the ACLU defended) Nazis spoke race hate to an angry large and possibly violent crowd. These fascists were delivered by and protected by Chicago's finest . The Cowards were going to march through Skokie at first but word got out that defenders (JDL and others)were going to gun them down in the street. Seeing these Nazi Cowards huddling behind cops like weaklings spoke volumes and was made famous in The Blues Bros Movie (Illinois Nazis LOL)
The history lesson on how we got to this point was quite illuminating. Had no idea this had been going on as long as it has. It seems like it came out of now where just a few years ago and then accelerated with the covid lockdowns. I especially liked how Greg tied what is happening to cognitive mental health issues. The woke require that others use the right words ensure a their personal happniess or to justify their identity. Those who require this will be forever miserable, as no one can make another person happy or justify their identity. That comes from within. It is sad to see so many people buying into a religion of misery. Namaste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
Greg has been fighting the good fight since "woke" meant it was time to get out of bed.
I’m a little confused.
“There is no organization that’s done more to fight for freedom of speech on American campuses over the past 20 years than FIRE” This sounds like they are in favor of freedom of speech.
But then this sentence “If you care deeply about the First Amendment and a robust culture of free speech, FIRE is the kind of organization you hope will go out of business.”
??
what am I missing? 🤔
Everything. They will go out of business when they are no longer needed. But it was a dumb thing to say because it confused you. Being clear, concise and direct is out of style.
if the culture of free speech were robust, you wouldn't need FIRE.
I think maybe what she means is that you hope it goes out of business because civilization as a whole cannot imagine a society not believing in freedom of speech ... hence no reason for FIRE to exist?
This took me a few reads to get, the sentence flow is awkward. But I think I agree with your reasoning here.
Hoping FIRE would go out of business is to mean that it would be good if it wasn't needed in the first place. In other words, in a perfect world where everyone intrinsically valued free speech, we shouldn't even need FIRE.
Missing the word "not" as in "hope will not go out of business."
No. You are being logical, but that’s not what the author meant. But your mistake is understandable. Checking one’s work is no longer a job requirement. If I sound like a grumpy old man, it’s because I love English composition and hate seeing it being destroyed.
Yeah...Bari must have written this one in a hurry. She also says
"And the organization has announced a goal of $75 million in order to pick up the flag the ACLU has put down by becoming the premier civil liberties organization in America."
One way this reads is that, by "...put[ting] down the flag", ACLU has "...becom[e] the premier civil liberties organization in America," which I'm pretty sure isn't what she meant to say.
Indefinite antecedent, like "dripping with gravy, she served the roast."
Excellent point. Better there is no need for FIRE.
I enjoyed the podcast- great topic and guest