The right to know: How does censorship affect academics?
When academics and journalists forego sharing their findings, out of intimidation, we all lose out.
- Academic freedom is what makes a university space work as a setting to develop students' capacities. It is the permission to think freely, and have contrarian discussions, that leads to new insights.
- There are whole zones of knowledge that we never get to because of intimidation put on academics: "We simply don't know what we haven't even thought to ask."
- Self-censorship, especially regarding sensitive topics, is the dark matter of the academic freedom universe. Out of fear of being attacked, or their families being harmed, some journalists and scholars will forego publishing their findings.
- 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.
How can we improve the quality of higher education?
By welcoming various intrepid thoughts, we welcome learning.
- Viewpoint diversity describes a community where you have people approaching questions from a range of different perspectives.
- When you have a lot of people asking questions and interrogating claims from a lot of different perspectives, community members are better able to see the nuance in whatever that subject of inquiry happens to be.
- Heterodox Academy improves the quality of scholarship in higher education by increasing open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement across lines of difference. A range of viewpoints are allowed in and are then interrogated on campus.
- 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.
- Human beings are psychologically hardwired to fear differences
- Several recent studies show evidence that digital spaces exacerbate the psychology which contributes to tribalism
- Shared experiences of awe, such as space travel, or even simple shared meals, have surprising effectives for uniting opposing groups
The year was fraught to say the least.
<p>Riots in the streets, engagement abroad in a long-fought war, and an encroaching sense that the fabric that knits us together is pulling at the seams.</p><p>Still a single sentence from it all speaks to our ability to come together: "<a href="https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4223/ch9.htm" target="_blank">Thank you for saving 1968</a>."</p><p>Those words of gratitude—standing out against the backdrop of a tumultuous year—arrived via telegram at NASA half a century ago following Apollo 8's successful trip around the moon. But their lesson applies today.</p><p>Emerging research in the fields of psychology and neuroscience <a href="https://bigthink.com/videos/beau-lotto-creativity-is-another-form-of-logic" target="_self">demonstrates</a> that we often need a shared experience of awe, humor, or physical exertion to help transcend our differences. (Think team-building trust falls and rope courses in the woods). Fortunately, it doesn't take a trip around the moon to bridge the deepest divides—even conversation over a cup of coffee or a meal can remind us of each other's humanity.</p><p>What does this mean for free speech? Everything, it turns out.</p>We are hardwired to censor what's unfamiliar.
<p>Our brains' first response to difference is not curiosity but fear or scorn. In a mid-20th century experiment called "<a href="https://www.simplypsychology.org/robbers-cave.html" target="_blank">Robber's Cave</a>," researchers brought together two demographically identical groups of boys, randomly sorted them into two groups, gave them each a few days to form bonds within their "tribes," and then kicked off a baseball competition. The boys quickly started generalizing about the other team and drawing distinctions that didn't exist.</p><p>Even absent any particular reason to be in disagreement, the experiment reveals that people are primed to sort into 'in' groups and 'out' groups. In the spectacle that politics can be at times, we can see how easy it is for Americans to fall into this trap. The tendency is not unique to any one political tribe. Recent research by the Cato Institute <a href="https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/survey-reports/topline/cato-free-speech-tolerance-toplines.pdf" target="_blank">found</a> at least one thing the left and the right agree on. They both want to silence someone, they just disagree on who.</p><p>In light of all this, what we've witnessed in recent months may not feel surprising but is troubling nonetheless. Other examples are readily available from both sides of the aisle: elected and appointed leaders <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/protesters-confront-senator-mitch-mcconnell-kentucky-restaurant-1180129" target="_blank">shouted out of restaurants</a>, journalists <a href="https://www.thewrap.com/ny-times-reporter-receives-threatening-voicemail-the-pen-is-not-mightier-than-the-ak-47-audio/" target="_blank">receiving death threats</a>, and bombs <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/george-soros-n-y-home-targeted-explosive-device-authorities-say-n923196" target="_blank">sent in the mail to public figures</a> villainized by radical activists. Relying on intimidation to silence people goes beyond censorship. It's abhorrent.</p>Now take that tendency and add in the emerging digital landscape.
<p>The same technology that has made it possible to connect people instantly across great distances can also compound our divisional instincts. A recent study <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/115/37/9216" target="_blank">found</a> that when individuals confront different perspectives online, the new information further entrenches their existing beliefs and increases skepticism of the opposing view. It's also now easier than ever to opt into what MoveOn.org board president and digital guru Eli Pariser calls "filter bubbles"—choosing to surround ourselves with homogenous communities and replacing diverse, in-person interaction with digital engagement.</p>So what do we do about it?
<p> The increasing division and polarization our country's experiencing is the result of many factors—many likely not fully understood or even still unknown. The long-term solutions will be as complex as the humans at the root of it.</p><p>But we can make progress in the meantime in surprisingly simple ways. People are full of potential. Individuals can play an essential role in helping fractured communities heal and turning fear to curiosity when encountering other ideas, cultures, and perspectives. We have the opportunity to learn from each other's differences.</p><p>A decade ago on another space flight the crew of the International Space Station gathered for a meal. The astronauts came from different backgrounds: Iranian, Russian, American, and others—individuals who have shared that they may have otherwise struggled to find common ground on Earth. But when they broke (freeze-dried) bread together as they watched the Earth passing by, they experienced a "<a href="https://www.constellation.earth/" target="_blank">profound emotional experience of interconnection</a>."</p><p>It doesn't take zero gravity. Just start a conversation rooted in deep respect for each other's inherent dignity. Be the change you want to see in this tiny, blue dot.</p>Why the wars America starts are unwinnable
Why do we continue to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan? Because of two big reasons.
Danny Sjursen—a prominent U.S. Army strategist and also a former history instructor at West Point Academy—posits that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't winnable. So... why don't we leave? As he puts it: "We have the inertia of a military-industrial complex, which makes a lot of money for a lot of people and keeps a lot of people employed, on one end, and then we have the sunken cost fallacy on the other side, where we say "We’ve committed so much we can’t possibly leave." Danny is brought to you today by the Charles Koch Foundation. The Charles Koch Foundation aims to further understanding of how US foreign policy affects American people and societal well-being. Through grants, events, and collaborative partnerships, the Foundation is working to stretch the boundaries of foreign policy research and debate by discussing ideas in strategy, trade, and diplomacy that often go unheeded in the US capital. For more information, visit charleskochfoundation.org. NOTE: The views expressed in this video are those of the guest speaking in an unofficial capacity and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Command and General Staff College, Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US government.
Why the World May Be Safe with More Nuclear Weapons, Not Fewer
What's really involved in snuffing out a country’s nuclear capabilities—and is that the right war to be waging?
The United States tries hard to keep nuclear weapons away from countries it considers foes. Given how close the world came to nuclear armageddon during the Cold War, and recent threats from so-called “rogue states" like North Korea, it may seem like an essential goal. But America's strategy for thwarting nuclear proliferation may be reaching a point where the costs outweigh the benefits.
