Category: Intellectual Freedom

More Campus Censorship

2/24/2016

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

A Plan to Restore Intellectual Freedom on Campuses

12/7/2015

Comments

I’ve long thought that it is time for university trustees and maybe even legislative bodies to get involved in some of these matters. Of course my hesitation is that they can always make matters worse. In general, I think institutions should be politically neutral and should spend their time maintaining an environment where free enquiry and free expression collaborate. Maybe the plan below is a good starting point?

JPW
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428122/plan-restore-free-speech-campus-stanley-kurtz

Comments

“This is Not Day Care. It’s a University"

12/1/2015

Comments

Sometimes support comes from the places you least expect it. Today I read a letter to students at Oklahoma Wesleyan University from the President of OWU. The letter is a gem and is reproduced below.:
This past week, I actually had a student come forward after a university chapel service and complain because he felt “victimized” by a sermon on the topic of 1 Corinthians 13. It appears that this young scholar felt offended because a homily on love made him feel bad for not showing love. In his mind, the speaker was wrong for making him, and his peers, feel uncomfortable.
I’m not making this up. Our culture has actually taught our kids to be this self-absorbed and narcissistic. Any time their feelings are hurt, they are the victims. Anyone who dares challenge them and, thus, makes them “feel bad” about themselves, is a “hater,” a “bigot,” an “oppressor,” and a “victimizer.”
I have a message for this young man and all others who care to listen. That feeling of discomfort you have after listening to a sermon is called a conscience. An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It is supposed to make you feel guilty. The goal of many a good sermon is to get you to confess your sins—not coddle you in your selfishness. The primary objective of the Church and the Christian faith is your confession, not your self-actualization.
So here’s my advice:
If you want the chaplain to tell you you’re a victim rather than tell you that you need virtue, this may not be the university you’re looking for. If you want to complain about a sermon that makes you feel less than loving for not showing love, this might be the wrong place.
If you’re more interested in playing the “hater” card than you are in confessing your own hate; if you want to arrogantly lecture, rather than humbly learn; if you don’t want to feel guilt in your soul when you are guilty of sin; if you want to be enabled rather than confronted, there are many universities across the land (in Missouri and elsewhere) that will give you exactly what you want, but Oklahoma Wesleyan isn’t one of them.
At OKWU, we teach you to be selfless rather than self-centered. We are more interested in you practicing personal forgiveness than political revenge. We want you to model interpersonal reconciliation rather than foment personal conflict. We believe the content of your character is more important than the color of your skin. We don’t believe that you have been victimized every time you feel guilty and we don’t issue “trigger warnings” before altar calls.
Oklahoma Wesleyan is not a “safe place”, but rather, a place to learn: to learn that life isn’t about you, but about others; that the bad feeling you have while listening to a sermon is called guilt; that the way to address it is to repent of everything that’s wrong with you rather than blame others for everything that’s wrong with them. This is a place where you will quickly learn that you need to grow up.
This is not a day care. This is a university!

By President Everett Piper

I looked up 1 Corinthians 13 to see what was so offensive. Here it is:

If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

http://www.okwu.edu/blog/2015/11/this-is-not-a-day-care-its-a-university/

Comments

More Campus Censorship

Ethics As A Weapon

Attacks on Free Speech Today and Yesterday

A Plan to Restore Intellectual Freedom on Campuses

“This is Not Day Care. It’s a University"

John Paul Wright and Matt DeLisi

Archives

Categories