Category: Free Speech

Why Have Universities Been Overtaken by Mob Rule?

2/25/2016

The university system is really a marvel of our society. Today, after teaching a class, I attended a presentation on intelligent policing. The presentation was excellent and revealed the future of policing--data driven, focused, and multi-faceted. Moreover, the presentation showed how academic criminology can work with local agencies to improve public safety and to better control crime. Nowhere else will you find this type of thinking and research than on a university campus.

Yet the requirements for open dialogue, objective research, and honest criticism are in peril. Campus activists, social justice faculty, and administrators who compromise every academic value imaginable have created a climate that is sometimes hostile to the search for truth.

The consequences attached to this climate extend far beyond the narrow confines of academic research. As we place more and more constraints on speech, as we limit tolerance for competing ideas, and as we accept the cascading calls for censorship we create a generation unable to reason, unable to accept criticism, and unable to critically examine their own biases.

Along comes an excellent essay on the topic. Some quotes:

Intolerance for free speech among student groups reveals their disregard for reason. Any opposition to or skepticism of their cause is met with anger, threats, and possibly physical harm. This is because free speech honors man’s rational faculty, presuming it is the genuine commonality among human beings.

As such, progressive pieties often foreclose respect for humility, decency, and honest inquiry. Rather than persuading the mind, they command and shame it. Liberal education to the contrary requires a spirit of reverence aiming to liberate the mind from prejudice—the prejudices of birth, public opinion, one’s own distorted and inflated opinions of oneself—in preparation for citizenship.

The perspective of anger is incapable of understanding our nation’s needs and its common good. Neither is it capable of creating productivity, decency, self-respect, or political freedom. A public whose passions are its sole animating feature is unsuited for rule by laws.

Read the essay here: http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/25/why-have-universities-been-overtaken-by-mob-rule/

Comments

More Campus Censorship

2/24/2016

Comments

The president of Cal State, Los Angeles cancelled a talk by Ben Shapiro. Shapiro, you may know, is sort of a conservative antagonist. He’s bright but he’s brash and, well, conservative.....so his presence on a campus disrupts the natural utopia that already exists.

It appears that the typical group of faculty and students got upset, took to social media, and created a climate of intense victimhood. Shapiro, they argued, dismisses BLM, makes people uncomfortable, and belittles minorities. For these sins, he had to be banned.

Of course the president is a tad bit smarter than the professional crybabies. In his response to the student group who sponsored Shapiro’s talk, the president stated that he wanted to bring more people into the conversation with Shapiro so that “diversity” could be more thoughtfully discussed. Yes, the president wanted others to present with Shapiro so they could presumably defend Cal State’s diversity efforts.

I guess the president thinks he figured out a clever way to appease all the crybabies at the same time he allows Shapiro a forum. Hey, I’m all for the idea of a debate and always presenting opposing views and I’ll support that idea as soon as I see a panel on diversity include opposing views or as soon as I see a BLM panel be forced to include opposing views. I’m sure that will happen soon.

Just in case you believe all of these instances of banning conservatives from campus are a fluke, you should understand that our current crop of college students believe in censorship. A recent poll from Pew, shown below, finds that millennials are favorably predisposed to believe that government should be able to prevent people from saying things that might be critical of minorities.

Let’s get real: A handful of quasi-scholars have created a climate of intolerance and way too many campus administrators are afraid of them. More faculty need to speak up to counter this cancer or it will, surely, destroy us all.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/24/cal-state-los-angeles-cancels-conservative-speakers-appearance

Comments

Ethics As A Weapon

1/27/2016

Comments

My friend, Frank Cullen, has been a vocal opponent of the American Society of Criminology's movement to adopt a code of ethics. As many of you know, Frank is "Mr. Liberal." Well, in a show of bipartisan support I want to echo Frank's warnings and concerns about the adoption of THE CODE.

Why, you may ask, would anyone be opposed to a code of ethics? Well, to understand our opposition you really have to read the proposed code. The code is a modified version taken from the American Sociological Association and can be found here: http://www.asc41.com/ASC_Code_of_Ethics.pdf

Give it a quick read. You will immediately notice the politically charged language. For example,

In their professional activities, ASC members are committed to enhancing the general well being of societies and of the individuals and groups within them. Thus, ASC members have an obligation to avoid forms of social injustice such as discrimination, oppression, or harassment in their own work. ASC members also must be careful to avoid incompetent, unethical, or unscrupulous use of criminological knowledge.

Who knew I was responsible with enhancing the general well being of societies, individuals, and groups? I didn't even know I had this magical power. How should I do this? Am I to promote social justice ideology, advocate for decarceration, or argue that all citizens, regardless of income, should receive FREE Starbucks?

The next statement, however, really gets under my skin. I will now have an "obligation to avoid social injustice" in my own work.

WTF?

As many of you know, I have been instrumental in reviving the study of biosocial criminology. I've gone to great lengths to keep the two issues separate on this blog because I want the ideas to stand or fall on their own. However, one reason I wrote my "Conservative" book was because of the reaction I and my colleagues have received for our work in biosocial. We have, on many occasions, been subject to some rather nasty criticisms including but not limited to accusations of being scientific racists and sexists. Given our experiences, ask yourself how this clause in the ASC ethics charge will be used? Is there a possibility that those of us who work in biosocial will be charged with "creating or facilitating social injustice" in our work? And what about someone who conducts research on racial differences in offending, or the death penalty, or any other topic that is politically tinged......will they also be charged with facilitating social injustice? Could I accuse my radical brethren of promoting communism and Marxism and thus "facilitating social injustice?" Don't think it won't happen? Look at other disciplines........

Ask yourself what standard exists to determine whether someone was "incompetent, unethical, or unscrupulous" in their use of criminological knowledge? Are these terms defined or do they mean whatever someone wants them to mean? What, after all, would constitute "unscrupulous" use of criminological knowledge? Would denying sex differences qualify? Would denying the important role of biology in behaviour?

Here is another odd statement:

ASC members will not consult or use their research in any way that would support espionage, spying, torture and other activities that violate human rights or civil liberties in the US or elsewhere.

I'm sorry, but if I wish to collaborate with an intelligence agency and to bring my knowledge to bear so we can obliterate ISIS, prevent terrorist attacks, or destroy drug cartels.....I will. Believe it or not, some of us have military experience, we love our country, and we may even want to help lend a hand to defeat of our enemies. Don't agree? Then don't participate. I see no reason for the ASC to adopt this clause outside of the fact it supports their politics.

The rest of the document details expectations for damn near every part of one's professional career. There is language about teaching, about reviewing articles, about editing, about working as an administrator. Every part of my life....your life....will be subject to ASC oversight.

But wait.....how would allegations of unethical activities be investigated and what sanctions would be aimed at the offender found guilty of making students feel uncomfortable? We don't know. Nothing is spelled out.

I've been told that a committee will be formed to investigate allegations and that the punishments will be "reintegrative," including publishing the offenders misdeeds and name.

Let me be direct: We are talking about people's lives, their reputations, and their ability to make a living. The consequences that accompany any ethics complaint are serious--even if the complaint is unfounded. These things are used by others to besmirch the reputations of those they don't like and of whose work they don't like. They devolve quickly into a feeding frenzy of gossip and the "politics of personal destruction." In the end, even if acquitted, the individual's reputation suffers.

Personally, I would rather be judged by 20 random individuals drawn from a major city street than by 20 academics. In twenty years of work I have witnessed example after example where academics slandered, screwed over, lied about, and maligned other academics. I've seen instances where committee votes happened because members were too afraid to speak up and dissent. Bravery is not a defining characteristic of academics

And for those of you willing to trust others to punish you in a way that is "reintegrative" ask yourself how "reintegrated" you would feel with your name plastered across the ASC's website or published in "The Criminologist." Maybe as an experiment you could send me your name and let me publish it here? Didn't think so.

To vigorously enforce this code, I think the ASC should establish some morals police--people who are charged with making certain nothing "unethical" happens during ASC meetings. They could start at the bar and then maybe attend various panel sessions.

The "Code" is far reaching, encroaches on the legitimate oversight maintained by our universities, and offers no pre-specified enforcement mechanism. Adoption elevates the likelihood that spurious charges will be lodged against scholars for dubious reasons.

Why would anyone voluntarily subject themselves to this level of oversight? It drives up the risks associated with being an ASC member.......risks that are too high for me.

JPW

Comments

Attacks on Free Speech Today and Yesterday

1/25/2016

Comments

In 1963, with debates on North Carolina’s campuses raging, a handful of powerful state representatives snuck into law a bill that banned North Carolina universities from allowing communists to speak on campus. Not only communists were banned but so too were individuals who had claimed 5th Amendment protections in cases where they were accused of engaging in subversive activities. I found a copy of the actual bill. It is posted here.

Fast forward to today. I’m going out on a limb here but I’m going to guess that no state legislature would allow such a bill to be passed today. Individual legislatures may desire to limit speech on their state’s campus, but I doubt they would be successful.

But they no longer have to......because the Federal government has essentially colluded with many on campus who wish to control speech.

Enter the strange case of Professor Teresa Buchanan at LSU. Professor Buchanan had, yes had, an unblemished 20 year career at LSU. She was productive, won teaching awards, and appears to have been a contributing member of the university.

She also had a potty mouth and liked to tell jokes laced with sexual innuendo.

When Teresa went up for promotion to full professor something happened. It seems a student or two and a community member complained about her language. Teresa was supported all the way the chain of command in her bid to earn promotion but was eventually denied by the Provost. Not only was she denied promotion......but the administration brought charges against here that would END HER CAREER.

What, may you ask, did she do to get terminated? Did she not show up to work? No. Did she plagiarize a paper? No. Did she fabricate data? No. Did she not teach her courses. Nope, nope, and nope.

It seems her crime was that she cussed.....and told a joke.

Despite a university committees finding that she should not be fired, the administration went ahead and terminated her. They cited the Department of Education’s direction on “sexual harassment” and “creating a hostile workplace.” People and organizations had warned us that the DOE’s language would be used to ill effect, that it was overly broad, and that faculty would be fired for teaching controversial topics and for employing certain words.

To its credit, the AAUP has censured LSU. You can find their report on the internet.

In 1963 a handful of elected representatives infringed on the free speech rights of communists. It took 5 years before the law was found unconstitutional by the courts. During that time period, university presidents and faculty joined in a chorus of voices to protest the law.

In 2016 we have a handful of unelected lawyers in the DOE issuing non-binding “letters” to universities that provide the justifications for kangaroo courts and for the infringement on free speech rights of students and faculty. This time around we have no such chorus of voices.

This time around, they are complicit.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25973/

Comments

Democrats Don't Like Free Speech if it Violates Other Values

1/10/2016

Comments

I took the liberty to graph, in a basic way, the data from the YouGov survey presented in the prior post. The sample contained 1,000 randomly selected respondents.

As you can see, the question asked whether respondents thought that universities should a) protect free speech even if that meant allowing offensive and racist comments or b) making sure students have an environment free from discrimination even if that means limiting what students can say.

As you can see, there are fairly dramatic differences by political orientation. Democrats were significantly more likely to not endorse free speech and were significantly more likely to endorse limits on free speech for college students compared to republicans.

Methodologists will likely quibble with how the questions were phrased but I believe they adequately capture core differences between these groups. Research tells us that liberals--and I realise not all democrats are liberal--prioritise equality. Haidt, moreover, also tells us that liberals have made sacred certain ideals. One of these ideals is the protection of minority groups.

The questions contain a reference to racism, thus pitting off competing values between supporting free speech and protecting minorities. Framed this way, it is pretty clear that democrats value the protection of minorities much more than they value free speech.

Let's assume that these findings are reliable and that they generalise to democrats and republicans at-large. I think they may help to explain why we see so many efforts to curtail speech on college campuses. The vast, vast majority of university faculty are democrats and are, by any measure, further to the left than "average" liberals.

When free speech is framed as a competing value in opposition to the protection of minorities, free speech loses and justifications to limit speech follow.

It would be nice to see if other questions were asked that juxtaposed similar values. Do democrats, for example, support free speech under some conditions but not others. Same thing for republicans. Do they support free speech under a broad array of conditions or only those outlined?

At any case, these findings also tell us why intellectual diversity is important. Most academic departments in the social sciences and humanities don't contain a single republican--people who bring a different set of values to the table. In this case, they tend to support free speech.

Comments

Another Exchange at a University Thanks to Young Americans for Liberty. This is What a University Looks Like.

12/14/2015

Comments

Both sides of this debate make intelligent points and the young man involved is clearly very bright. Engagement and debate is what a university should be about.

Comments

This is What Needs to Happen

12/13/2015

Comments

Readers of this blog know that I’ve focused a lot of attention on matters of speech--free speech that is. Yes, I’ll cover other academic issues but speech is at the core of what we do. It is at the core of free enquiry. It is at the core of teaching. It is at the core......well, you get the point.

I’m happy to say that people in positions of power are taking notice. The Wisconsin system just adopted a statement on free speech modeled after the University of Chicago’s statement.

However, what struck me were comments made by trustees about the necessity of listening. Speech, of course, is only 1/2 the issue. The other half is that people--including professors, students, activists, ect....--should listen to the other side. And not just listen, but THINK.

I like to tell people that just because an idea or a criticism came from the right doesn’t automatically make it wrong. As scholars and students, we should try to understand what motivates individual cognition and not simply dismiss contrary viewpoints.

Listening, of course, takes effort. Thinking objectively takes even more effort. However, it is only by listening to contrarian views, dispassionately weighing evidence, and realizing the limitations of our own views that we learn and, eventually, change our minds.

You can read about the free speech statement here:

https://www.thefire.org/university-of-wisconsins-board-of-regents-passes-free-speech-statement/

Comments

This is What a University Looks Like

12/7/2015

Comments

I want to throw two big thumbs up to Saint Louis University for sponsoring a talk by Charles Murray. Given the social context, Murray is an unlikely candidate to give talks on campus--much less talks about sex and race differences. And yet that is what SLU allowed and what Charles Murray did. Whether you agree with Charles Murray or not this is what the free and civilized exchange of ideas looks like.

Thanks professor Boutwell for providing me this link.

JPW

The link to Murray’s talk is here:

http://sphmedia.slu.edu/BrianBoutwell/CJ_Murray2015.m4v

Comments

A Journalism Professor Who is Also a Muslim Stands Up for the 1st Amendment

12/4/2015

Comments

This post is well worth the read. In it, professor Shaheen Pasha, who has covered stories as a reporter around the world, defends the necessity of a free press. Bravo professor Pasha!

http://mediashift.org/2015/12/the-fallacy-of-safe-space-on-college-campuses/

Comments

Why Have Universities Been Overtaken by Mob Rule?

More Campus Censorship

Ethics As A Weapon

Attacks on Free Speech Today and Yesterday

Democrats Don't Like Free Speech if it Violates Other Values

Another Exchange at a University Thanks to Young Americans for Liberty. This is What a University Looks Like.

This is What Needs to Happen

This is What a University Looks Like

A Journalism Professor Who is Also a Muslim Stands Up for the 1st Amendment

John Paul Wright and Matt DeLisi

Archives

Categories