College, Liberalism, and the Destruction of Free Speech
College campuses have become a breeding ground of intolerance and shame — vigilant liberalism is destroying free speech.
On Friday night my girlfriend and I headed to The Comedy Store in West Hollywood for a stellar line-up of 14 comedians. While we only stayed for the first half, at least three comics tackled one of the nation’s top recent headlines: the transformation of Bruce into Caitlyn Jenner, the larger story being identity politics in general.
What went down would most likely only work in a comedy club — Joe Rogan’s skit on the vampiric vulture Kardashians perched over Bruce in his sleep demonically nudging him toward femininity had the crowd rolling. The bigger question, one that Rogan and other comics have been addressing, is whether or not such observations work in a culture ready to publicly dismantle anyone over the slightest tweet. As Caitlin Flanagan reports, the answer is no.
Discussing an annual college-booking talent convention in Minneapolis, she writes:
They wanted comedy so thoroughly scrubbed of barb and aggression that if the most hypersensitive weirdo on campus mistakenly wandered into a performance, the words he would hear would fall on him like a soft rain, producing a gentle chuckle and encouraging him to toddle back to his dorm, tuck himself in, and commence a dreamless sleep — not text Mom and Dad that some monster had upset him with a joke.
The term "politically correct" cannot properly capture the scope of what’s occurring on campuses. In the same issue of The Atlantic, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt investigate the coddling of the American mind. They argue that this trend toward being inoffensive in every possible circumstance is undermining intellectual and emotional growth, causing students to be unprepared for the post-university world.
Vindictive protectiveness ... prepares them poorly for professional life, which often demands intellectual engagement with people and ideas one might find uncongenial or wrong. The harm may be more immediate, too. A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety. The new protectiveness may be teaching students to think pathologically.
Recently entering my 40s, I’ve done my best not to look down on preceding generations; I remember how it felt on the way up. For example, as a longtime music journalist, I’ve avoided the phrase, ‘That’s not music!” so common when I grew up in love with hip-hop. Keeping up with the times is important not only in music, but also in ideas and cultural movements as well. We’re experiencing an unraveling of our political system, with two top candidates — Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders — representing opposing ends of our socio-economic spectrum. Understanding the balance between them, and therefore the rest of the candidates, requires nuanced thinking.
Yet as Lukianoff and Haidt report, 54 percent of college students have felt "overwhelming anxiety" in the last year, a number that is growing. Of course, this age is filled with social and personal pressures: seeing, probably for the first time, long-term potential in life; deeply experiencing love and heartbreak; associating with people from different ethnic backgrounds and life experiences. I learned more outside of the classroom than in at Rutgers in the mid-'90s. I suspect this is the case for most.
But I also know, as someone with a degree in Religion while having none of my own, how easily it is to slip into tribalism. While the focus of the above articles is college campuses, this thinking appears daily on social media feeds. One popular phrasing: “If you don’t agree with xxx (same-sex marriage; anti-GMOs; climate change; transgenderism), then unfriend me now. I don’t want to associate with you.”
The same as the pathology cited above: I don’t want to see anything conflicting with my thought processes, for it will create too much anxiety. Much safer it is to be in a bubble of affirmation than a valley of uncertainty. Put another way: If I close my eyes, I can’t see you; therefore you do not exist.
But they do exist, and denying that strengthens our insecurities. Lukianoff and Haidt discuss trigger warnings, the surge of anxiety-producing chemicals — specifically, adrenaline, cortisol, and norepinephrine responding to the hypothalamus’s distress signal — preceding a panic attack. I know this well, having experience anxiety disorder since age 16.
The Fulton Street subway stop in Manhattan was one such trigger. Nine years ago, I passed out in an East Village restaurant at the onset of a panic attack, landing and waking up on some poor woman’s lap. A week later, nearly the same thing happened as I stepped onto a crowded car at that stop. For months, I couldn’t enter that station without feeling an impending attack; I walked the extra few blocks to city hall as a remedy.
This is no remedy, however; it’s avoidance. After a few months on Xanax, I was able to alleviate the symptoms through meditation and pranayama (yogic breathing techniques). Once things were under control, I began using Fulton again, with no ill effects. I had to confront my fear to continue with my life.
This extreme anxiety over someone not agreeing with you is not going to be cured by censoring those people or mobbing them online. Yet a fool persists in his follies, or so I’ve read. A group at the University of New Hampshire recently published a "Bias-Free Language Guide" to combat perceived discrimination. This guide is a window into the lengths students attempt to avoid conflict; it offers alternative verbiage, including:
Conservatives are often criticized for instilling religious fanaticism into their politics. Liberalism is bowing to the same god. Not that of any book, but the persistent insistence that "only my way is right." We splinter into groups, we unfriend, then we viciously attack anything remotely foreign — er, international. And the more voices standing to chatter, the fewer listening to anything beyond the stretch between their mouth and their ears.
Step inside the unlikely friendship of a former ACLU president and an ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justice.
- Former president of the ACLU Nadine Strossen and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia were unlikely friends. They debated each other at events all over the world, and because of that developed a deep and rewarding friendship – despite their immense differences.
- Scalia, a famous conservative, was invited to circles that were not his "home territory", such as the ACLU, to debate his views. Here, Strossen expresses her gratitude and respect for his commitment to the exchange of ideas.
- "It's really sad that people seem to think that if you disagree with somebody on some issues you can't be mutually respectful, you can't enjoy each other's company, you can't learn from each other and grow in yourself," says Strossen.
- The opinions expressed in this video do not necessarily reflect the views of the Charles Koch Foundation, which encourages the expression of diverse viewpoints within a culture of civil discourse and mutual respect.
Learn how to redesign your job for maximum reward.
- Broaching the question "What is my purpose?" is daunting – it's a grandiose idea, but research can make it a little more approachable if work is where you find your meaning. It turns out you can redesign your job to have maximum purpose.
- There are 3 ways people find meaning at work, what Aaron Hurst calls the three elevations of impact. About a third of the population finds meaning at an individual level, from seeing the direct impact of their work on other people. Another third of people find their purpose at an organizational level. And the last third of people find meaning at a social level.
- "What's interesting about these three elevations of impact is they enable us to find meaning in any job if we approach it the right way. And it shows how accessible purpose can be when we take responsibility for it in our work," says Hurst.
Erik Verlinde has been compared to Einstein for completely rethinking the nature of gravity.
- The Dutch physicist Erik Verlinde's hypothesis describes gravity as an "emergent" force not fundamental.
- The scientist thinks his ideas describe the universe better than existing models, without resorting to "dark matter".
- While some question his previous papers, Verlinde is reworking his ideas as a full-fledged theory.
TuSimple, an autonomous trucking company, has also engaged in test programs with the United States Postal Service and Amazon.
PAUL RATJE / Contributor
- This week, UPS announced that it's working with autonomous trucking startup TuSimple on a pilot project to deliver cargo in Arizona using self-driving trucks.
- UPS has also acquired a minority stake in TuSimple.
- TuSimple hopes its trucks will be fully autonomous — without a human driver — by late 2020, though regulatory questions remain.