The thrust of the argument here is that to shut down voices that the Leftist establishment considers odious — which includes mine, although I am not mentioned in this article (no, I am not Richard Spencer) — is aiding the oppressed to have a voice that they are usually denied.
This is an argument for Brownshirt thuggery and/or totalitarian control of the public discourse. Who will be entrusted with the power to determine whether a group is sufficiently oppressed to be allowed to be heard? Whoever will have that power will be able to impose his or her views tyrannically, with all dissent suppressed.
Moreover, the idea that these oppressed groups have no voice as it is, and conservative speakers coming in would further silence and marginalize them, is sheer Leftist fantasy. In reality, the overwhelmingly dominant point of view on university and college campuses today is that of the hard-Left. Jihad is a response to U.S. imperialism, Muslims are always and in every case oppressed victims of racism and “Islamophobia” — try uttering a word of disagreement to those propositions on a university or college campus today, and see what happens. These ideas have near-total dominance on campus today. Letting me speak (and I did speak at Truman State University a couple of weeks ago, and have two more university appearances coming up) or others with dissenting points of view is simply allowing a small opposing word to be uttered amid the relentless and never-ending bleat for the other side.
The New York Times, perhaps realizing that it cannot win with its ideas on a level playing field, has now published here a sly apologetic for totalitarian censorship. To its everlasting shame, although I doubt that Ulrich Baer or the Times editors will notice my indictment amid all the applause they’re receiving for this piece from their peers.
“What ‘Snowflakes’ Get Right About Free Speech,” by Ulrich Baer, New York Times, April 24, 2017:
At one of the premieres of his landmark Holocaust documentary, “Shoah” (1985), the filmmaker Claude Lanzmann was challenged by a member of the audience, a woman who identified herself as a Holocaust survivor. Lanzmann listened politely as the woman recounted her harrowing personal account of the Holocaust to make the point that the film failed to fully represent the recollections of survivors. When she finished, Lanzmann waited a bit, and then said, “Madame, you are an experience, but not an argument.”
This exchange, conveyed to me by the Russian literature scholar Victor Erlich some years ago, has stayed with me, and it has taken on renewed significance as the struggles on American campuses to negotiate issues of free speech have intensified — most recently in protests at Auburn University against a visit by the white nationalist Richard Spencer.
Lanzmann’s blunt reply favored reasoned analysis over personal memory. In light of his painstaking research into the Holocaust, his comment must have seemed insensitive but necessary at the time. Ironically, “Shoah” eventually helped usher in an era of testimony that elevated stories of trauma to a new level of importance, especially in cultural production and universities.
During the 1980s and ’90s, a shift occurred in American culture; personal experience and testimony, especially of suffering and oppression, began to challenge the primacy of argument. Freedom of expression became a flash point in this shift. Then as now, both liberals and conservatives were wary of the privileging of personal experience, with its powerful emotional impact, over reason and argument, which some fear will bring an end to civilization, or at least to freedom of speech.
We should resist the temptation to rehash these debates. Doing so would overlook the fact that a thorough generational shift has occurred. Widespread caricatures of students as overly sensitive, vulnerable and entitled “snowflakes” fail to acknowledge the philosophical work that was carried out, especially in the 1980s and ’90s, to legitimate experience — especially traumatic experience — which had been dismissed for decades as unreliable, untrustworthy and inaccessible to understanding.
The philosopher Jean-François Lyotard, best known for his prescient analysis in “The Postmodern Condition” of how public discourse discards the categories of true/false and just/unjust in favor of valuing the mere fact that something is being communicated, examined the tension between experience and argument in a different way.
Instead of defining freedom of expression as guaranteeing the robust debate from which the truth emerges, Lyotard focused on the asymmetry of different positions when personal experience is challenged by abstract arguments. His extreme example was Holocaust denial, where invidious but often well-publicized cranks confronted survivors with the absurd challenge to produce incontrovertible eyewitness evidence of their experience of the killing machines set up by the Nazis to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Not only was such evidence unavailable, but it also challenged the Jewish survivors to produce evidence of their own legitimacy in a discourse that had systematically denied their humanity.
Lyotard shifted attention away from the content of free speech to the way certain topics restrict speech as a public good. Some things are unmentionable and undebatable, but not because they offend the sensibilities of the sheltered young. Some topics, such as claims that some human beings are by definition inferior to others, or illegal or unworthy of legal standing, are not open to debate because such people cannot debate them on the same terms.
The recent student demonstrations at Auburn against Spencer’s visit — as well as protests on other campuses against Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and others — should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, rather than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not the case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.
In such cases there is no inherent value to be gained from debating them in public. In today’s age, we also have a simple solution that should appease all those concerned that students are insufficiently exposed to controversial views. It is called the internet, where all kinds of offensive expression flourish unfettered on a vast platform available to nearly all.
The great value and importance of freedom of expression, for higher education and for democracy, is hard to underestimate. But it has been regrettably easy for commentators to create a simple dichotomy between a younger generation’s oversensitivity and free speech as an absolute good that leads to the truth. We would do better to focus on a more sophisticated understanding, such as the one provided by Lyotard, of the necessary conditions for speech to be a common, public good. This requires the realization that in politics, the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing.
The rights of transgender people for legal equality and protection against discrimination are a current example in a long history of such redefinitions. It is only when trans people are recognized as fully human, rather than as men and women in disguise, as Ben Carson, the current secretary of housing and urban development claims, that their rights can be fully recognized in policy decisions.
The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.
THE STUDENT ACTIVISM that has roiled campuses — at Auburn, Missouri, Yale, Berkeley, Middlebury and elsewhere — is an opportunity to take stock of free speech issues in a changed world. It is also an opportunity to take into account the past few decades of scholarship that has honed our understanding of the rights to expression in higher education, which maintains particularly high standards of what is worthy of debate….
Anonymous says
I read this article by Ulrich Baer and I am left thinking this person strung out a bunch of words but didn’t say much of anything at all.
My eyes glaze over when I read “…balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community”.
Maybe it’s me… LOL.
jihad3tracker says
AS OF NOW (3:40 EASTERN US TIME) THE AUTHOR IS GETTING SHREDDED BY COMMENTERS, NUMBERING AT LEAST 1140 (TOTAL. –NOT NECESSARILY NEGATIVE).
Go to the link Robert gives and check them out yourself. Note the 3 categories, including “NYT Picks” — which are mostly disparaging!)
gravenimage says
Excellent to hear, jihad3tracker.
mortimer says
I actually saw the movie which apparently, Ulrich Baer, DID NOT! He doesn’t have a clue about the meaning of the scene he quotes.
The whole point of Lanzmann was that he was presently an airtight, legal CASE for the prosecution of Nazism in the court of world opinion.
HERE’S THE POINT, MR. BAER: No one has stopped a Holocaust survivor from CRITICIZING NAZISM in any way that they choose, whether by speaking, by writing, by filming. The Holocaust has been covered voluminously and in depth and from every conceivable angle.
The critique of JIHADISM is what Ulrich Baer dishonestly objects to. The DEATH TOLL OF JIHAD numbers at 270 million and still counting! The DEATH TOLL OF JIHAD is FORTY-FIVE TIMES GREATER THAN THE HITLERIAN HOLOCAUST.
The ISLAMIC JIHAD against non-Muslims (80% of the planet) is CONTINUING. The Hitlerian Holocaust is ended. Do we condemn ‘ALL GERMANS’ for the Holocaust? Obviously, not, but more and more we see that MANY OF THE PERPETRATORS OF NAZI ATROCITIES were never prosecuted or punished. Only their consciences punished them … if at all. Many Germans never lost their MASTER RACE IDEOLOGY.
Islamic SUPREMACIST ideology is MORE DANGEROUS than Hitlerism … FORTY-FIVE TIMES MORE DANGEROUS.
Wellington says
I’ll see you forty-five times, mortimer, and raise you forty-seven.
gravenimage says
Mortimer wrote:
HERE’S THE POINT, MR. BAER: No one has stopped a Holocaust survivor from CRITICIZING NAZISM in any way that they choose, whether by speaking, by writing, by filming. The Holocaust has been covered voluminously and in depth and from every conceivable angle.
…………………..
Exactly so, Mortimer.
Jayke says
It is so annoying to see the word “white” used in describing Mr. Spencer. “White” is a four letter word now. Even in church I recently heard someone refer to an “Angry white male of a father” when describing her father. Why use the word white in a sentence like that? Hey you people! Stop with the white guilt. White Europeans have a history of being enslaved too! You’ll never guess who was capturing and enslaving over a million Europeans. Every race has been guilty of slavery. Every race. By the way, I’m a white hispanic and a very nice guy.
dwight hogg says
It was the Arabs who began the slavery of blacks from Africa. And many African tribes assisted them and enslaved other tribes – and slaughtered other tribes. And slavery is still going on in Africa and the Middle East – especially of young girls. Where is the outrage from the lefties?
ICH says
You got further than me hahaha.
I just read blah blah blah
David Pimentel says
It’s not you. The authored drivel was mind numbing to read. However, given the ever-increasing lack of critical thinking that spews from both pre-approved and post-secondary institutions of learning, it’s no wonder that it gets time in the public discourse.
Westman says
This is the “Brownshirt” line – “..STUDENT ACTIVISM …an opportunity to take into account the past few decades of scholarship that has honed our understanding of the rights to expression in higher education, which maintains particularly high standards of WHAT IS WORTHY OF DEBATE…”
Summary – “You are not worthy of being listened to or being debated unless what you say passes the ‘particularly high standards’ of liberalism that has been honed at universities since the 1960s.”
Student-led revolutions end in tragedy for nations as often as not. They are characterized more by current social emotions – fanned by professors – than reasoned thought; by adolescents whose political voice is cracking on the way to maturity.
When real war comes in which the homeland citizens are directly at risk, a historical surety, these current students and professiors of “particularly high standards” will flee into every nook and cranny that will absolve them of fighting to preserve their country. Suddenly, the “conservatives” who save them will honored by the cowards until peace is achieved – then the cycle of patriotic decline begins, again, in the next generation.
Refusing to debate other ideas, not honed on campus or in liberal media, is just another form of cowardice.
Custos Custodum says
Don’t be misled – Ulrich Baer – safely suckling at the public teat – has volunteered to launch yet another trial balloon for the totalitarian Left.
The strategic aim is to circulate and gain tacit acceptance for yet another talking point for why non-totalitarian speech must be suppressed “BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY” in the Left’s favorite, Auschwitz/Gulag/Pol Pot tested phrase.
And no, this is not hyperbole. The Ulrich Baers of the world would love to bring back death camps to annihilate those who stand in their way – politically, financially or even sexually, all the while reciting works by sensitive European poets.
In PoliSci terminology, the immediate aim is to “move the Overton window” that defines the bounds of acceptable discourse.
In addition to denigrating uncomfortable statements as “hate speech,” the Pol Potists will now claim that any statements they do not like deprive (unseen, defined ad hoc) “minorities” of the chance to be heard.
This is logically equivalent to saying that you should shut up so I can hear the crows cawing in the trees (when there are no trees).
PoMo con artists like Baer love playing these French-style mind games with the “squares” and “rubes” who pay their salaries.
Adrian says
Blah, blah, blah….
This is nothing but more thrashing about from The Swamp, desperate to cling to its power over the minds of readers and sheep…
Frightening that Big Brother is so obvious!
Mike W. says
“When its proponents forget that it requires the vigilant and continuing examination of its parameters, and instead invoke a pure model of free speech that has never existed, the dangers to our democracy are clear and present.” Wow, I love this conclusion: freedom of speech is a threat to democracy. Orwell was a genius, with his 1984 “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”
TG Browning>>> says
The big, important and conveniently overlooked question is, WHO decides what is permissible and what is hate speech, impermissible, degradinng, and thus culpable speech?
Well hell, got to be those less well-funded, intellectual, and anointed by those in authority….
Hmmmmm. Gotta think about that. Which is of course, very un-post-modern.
Rats.. Given myself away, I have.
Browning>>>
Terry says
Like the post by the minister in Hitler’s Germany– They came for–I wasn’t—-blah blah
then they came for me- and there was nobody to speak for me.
the entire item has been on JW and elsewhere several times, or someone else can post it.
gravenimage says
Sure. Here’s the most commonly known version by Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
……
At other times, he mentioned incurable patients and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
His point is quite clear, in any case.
terry says
Thank you.
My sister was given a small (magnetic) plaque with that, which she has on her refrigerator.
True then, true today
gravenimage says
Yes–and many people still have not learned this lesson, sadly.
mortimer says
UNCONSCIONABLE!
The NYT has abandoned the pretence of having any ethics with this. Ulrich Baer contradicts himself, first calling for “robust debate” and then reversing himself. Regarding opinions he thinks are ‘asymetrical’, he pontificates, ‘there is no inherent value to be gained from debating them in public’.
Baer then makes no bones about demanding censorship for views he hates. Only views he likes … views that reflect and echo HIS OWN VIEWS are worthy of a hearing. Baer will decide what is ‘in the public interest.’
Baer is a real FASCIST, because fascists like BAER cannot be exposed to free speech just as VAMPIRES cannot be exposed to the rays of the sun.
Baer has found a crafty argument for CENSORSHIP which requires EQUALITY OF OUTCOME for those whose argument is EMOTION and FEELINGS, rather than fact and verifiable and meticulous historical details interpreted with reason.
Baer gets his way by exploiting hurt feelings.
Ulrich Baer endows himself with INFALLIBILTY because no authority or opinion is higher than his own.
gravenimage says
Good post, Mortimer.
Custos Custodum says
QUOTE: Ulrich Baer endows himself with INFALLIBILTY because no authority or opinion is higher than his own.
Good point, but Ulrich Baer’s real position is actually much WORSE: far from claiming INFALLIBILITY, totalitarians want total power to act ARBITRARILY and indeed capriciously.
In the Left’s utopia (our dystopia), if they happen to dislike anything about you, or indeed for no reason at all, they will annihilate you, your friends and relatives, and unluck bystanders.
Ask yourself whether the above makes sense of what you read between the lines of effluvium from Ulrich Baer and his fellow college totalitarians.
Stan Lee says
I hope none of us were that stupid as to expect a glittering positive endorsement from the New York version of Pravda!
To he– with the NY Times, it is a wounded leftist beast that can be predicted to continue its downward death spiral. Let us never forget how malicious it has been!
C T says
Oh, I won’t. Ever. Forget.
It’s whitewashing of and refusal to cover genuine threats while pretending to be the “paper of record” makes it an accomplice to far too much murder and slavery.
Jayke says
“White” is a four letter word now. Even in church I recently heard someone refer to an “Angry white male of a father” when describing her father. Why use the word white in a sentence like that? Hey you people! Stop with the white guilt. White Europeans have a history of being enslaved too! You’ll never guess who was capturing and enslaving over a million Europeans. Every race has been guilty of slavery. Every race.
gravenimage says
Not just that–it was “whites”–Europeans and their heirs–who led the abolition movement which has led to slavery being ended almost everywhere in the world.
Everywhere but Dar-al-Islam, in fact…
Terry says
The NYT had to sell its Boston newspaper, and its NYC headquarters (on a sale leaseback deal)- because it was running out of cash ( from what i read).
Because it is still a public company, its 10Q (I beleive that is the name) of their SEC documents would have a good picture of the financial condition. (If not 10 Q might be 10K)
Custos Custodum says
The NYT is now running down what’s left of its image to prostitute itself to its new billionaire owner, Carlos Slim (Lebanese-Mexican).
Mark Zuckerberg made a point of dancing attendance on Slim some time ago to discuss ways to make the world a better place for billionaires, far from the madding crowd.
mortimer says
SOPHOMORIC !
Ulrich Baer has merely dressed up (a little bit) the very SOPHOMORIC, morally relativist argument that ‘What is true for me may not be true for you.’
My FIRST-YEAR PHILOSOPHY TEACHER punctured this childish balloon easily by saying, “All that you are actually saying is: ‘I believe ‘x’. You are not saying more than ‘I believe ‘x’.”
Baer has dressed this SOPHOMORIC cliché to make it sound profounder than it is.
Baer’s argument that rigorous, fact-based argument is less relevant than ‘FEELINGS’ is shallow moral relativism. All opinions and all feelings do NOT have the same value or validity.
miriamrove says
The NY Times should be used in the hospitals when a patient requires an induced vomiting. M
mortimer says
Ha, ha, ha!
Voytek Gagalka says
The NYT gurgle about “a more sophisticated understanding,” “taking stock of free speech,” “standards worthy of debate,” etc. WTH all that means? LOL.
Custos Custodum says
In a word: OBFUSCATION.
The real aim is to END FREE SPEECH forever.
utis says
This information is just more fuel for the funeral pyre for MSM. The new from yesterday about NYT prettying up “FGM” was the last straw. Right now I don’t consider MSM any more worthy than super market tabloids.
Paper media can’t handle all the information that is out there, but the Internet should be able to have news sites that can handle multiple sides of an issue without apology. MSM is not treating people like intelligent adults. They behave as if we’re all simple-minded dolts who need to be told what to know and what to think.
On the topic of that old cow, NYT, does anyone know how they dealt with the Nazis before WWII? Did they refuse to talk about American Nazism or praise Hitler and his disciples? I’m too old to start my own research project (just trying to keep up with now), but I was hoping some history buff might know that.
Terry says
I don’t know about leading up to the US entry into WW2-but I THINK that they were NOT VIOLENTLY ANTI-NAZI —before the US entered the war.
During the war, they had no choice.
However, not sure (but has been on JW) if it was during Lenin or Stalin’s dictatorship, they glossed over the tens of millions that were murdered.
And, in the Nam war, published the Pentagon Papers (stolen documents); and were anti-war WHEN NIXON WAS PRES. NOT SO MUCH ANTI VIET NAME WHEN JFK GOT THIS COUNTRY INTO IT, NOR WHEN LBJ EXPANDED IT, at least at the begining of LBJ’s expansion.
An American victory was downplayed, a NV/VC victory made greater.
they belong with Hanoi Jane-dead.
My views.
gravenimage says
The NYT often buried stories about the Holocaust even during the war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buried_by_the_Times
Jaladhi says
I am tempted to say the leftist media is conducting their “jihad” against First Amendment rights of conservatives. – the right to speak out is only reserved for lefty liberals and not for anybody else. Hypocrites!1
Terry says
” FREE SPEECH FOR ME, BUT NOT FOR THEE” ( book)
NAT HENTOFF
written about 50 years ago; as true today as then.
gravenimage says
All true, Terry.
Wellington says
Orwell himself, were he still here, would be hard pressed to top this pernicious nonsense. Virtually daily the American Left reveals itself as an enemy of freedom as much as Islam does.
Sad. Troubling. Extremely dangerous.
And just one more reason to despise The New York Times. There are, after all, so many reasons to do so, and they keep piling up——-as here.
gravenimage says
The philosopher Jean-François Lyotard, best known for his prescient analysis in “The Postmodern Condition” of how public discourse discards the categories of true/false and just/unjust in favor of valuing the mere fact that something is being communicated, examined the tension between experience and argument in a different way.
…………………………………..
Not only is this questionable to begin with, but it is dishonest.
If colleges were *really* taking this position, then they would value what those they disagree with have to say, as well.
More:
The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks.
…………………………………..
Uh–no. This is *exactly* what freedom of speech means.
I can see making exceptions for violent threats–but that is it.
More:
It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.
…………………………………..
What crap.
No, the purpose of universities is not to teach students how to “belong to various communities”–what reductive bs. That sounds more like indoctrination than education.
And how can someone who is supposed to be a journalist assert that one’s position cannot even *be questioned*? Isn’t questioning precisely what journalists are *supposed* to do?
Besides, doesn’t Ulrich Baer realize that he is contradicting his own position here? What if one’s “community” consists of, say, Holocaust deniers? Isn’t demeaning their position attacking *their* right to participate in political speech? Of course it is.
This paradigm doesn’t work unless some “communities” and forms of “political speech” are allowed and supported, while others are demonized and shut down.
And his assertion that the only place for untrammeled speech is the internet is disingenuous, as well, seeing the increasing censorship on line.
Any decent person should consider the antidote to ugly speech to be *more* speech.
For instance, I have often countered 9/11 “Truthers” here. I am disgusted by this idiocy–and by Holocaust denial–but I would never want to shut these people up, nor would I have any right to do so if I *did* want to.
We all have the right to *reply* to speech with our own arguments–not to shut people up.
That this is what students at university are increasingly learning is terrifying.
Wellington says
Freedom, and I mean real freedom, gravenimage, and as certainly you understand it, is in dire danger, as I know you know, and this danger emanates not first and foremost from Islam, a multi-centuries long enemy of liberty to this very day to be sure, but from the massive idiocy of modern Western liberalism, which has betrayed the real liberalism of old and has slipped into yet another totalitarian ideology, replete with all kinds of oh-so-sophisticated phrasing, but the essence of it all being a metaphorical dagger pointed at freedom as much as any other metaphorical dagger ever has been———and made all the more putrid because modern liberalism, call it Leftism if you prefer, and unlike any other enemies of freedom, which at least did not hide their animosity to it, for instance Marxism, Nazism and Islam, still pretends to be for liberty when, in fact, it is anything but.
Quite the damn long single sentence I have just written, and I acknowledge this, but my blood was up and I was in a Dickensian frame of mind, Charles Dickens being the master of long English sentences and thus my inspiration at present, and so I thought I would give it a shot while enjoying a Guinness Stout.
Hope you are doing well, my friend. Take good care because you are an invaluable resource here at JW. Hell, for that matter, for freedom in general.
mortimer says
GI said, “What crap.” (Indeed, sophomoric crap… expertly demolished by GI.)
GI then said, “doesn’t Ulrich Baer realize that he is contradicting his own position here?”
(Apparently, Baer did not realize it. He’s a shallow moral relativist. His basic argument is, as someone else just wrote: ‘Free speech for me, but not for thee.’ How shallow and how fascist can you get?)
mortimer says
Baer wants to ‘balance’ the debate by ‘community interest’ or ‘public interest’ (whatever that is).
Baer wants to ‘balance’ in the sense of giving a ‘handicap’ to minorities such as a golf handicap.
Definition: In stroke play, (handicapping) is used to calculate a net score from the number of strokes actually played during a competition, thus allowing players of different proficiency to play against each other on somewhat equal terms. Handicap systems are NOT used in professional golf.
Handicap systems should not be used in ACADEMIC DEBATES.
Mr. Baer ACADEMIC DEBATE is not non-professional GOLF.
terry says
I missed the part about handicaps.
I think that THAT IS JUST A POLITER WAY OF SAYING “AFFIRMATIVE ACTION” FOR NEGROES AND HISPANICS, AS THEY CANNOT COMPETE WITH ASIANS AND WHITES ON A LEVEL FIELD, ACADEMICALLY OR INTELLECTUALLY.
( a bit off- but sort of relevant- back in the Obama Administration, the head of the Dept of (Un)Education had a study done, and the results were blacks were suspended more than whites, in schools.
left out were the following facts:
IN SCHOOLS WITH BLACK ADMINISTRATORS, BLACKS WERE SUSPENDED MORE THAT BLACKS IN SCHOOLS WITH WHITE ADMINISTRATORS.
WHITES WERE SUSPENDED MORE THAN ASIANS.
ASIANS HAD THE LOWEST RATE OF ANY GROUP. AND THE HIGHEST ACADEMIC SCORES, OF ANY GROUP.
But, why ;let facts get in the way?
gravenimage says
All true, Mortimer.
terry says
” FREE SPEECH FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE” is a book, written (I think in the 1960’s or 1970’s or thereabouts) by NAT HENTOFF. Mr. Hentiff was a writer for THE VILLAGE VOICE, AN ” ALTERNATIVE” NEWSPAPER, IN NEW YORK CITY, FOR DECADES.
Mr. Hentoff was a TRUE LIBERAL- he had his views, BUT WOULD LISTED TO OPPOSING VIEWS; HE WAS WILLING TO DEBATE – AND OPEN TO HEARING OPPOSITION TO HIS VIEWS-IF THERE WAS A REASON, NOT JUST BECAUSE THE OPPONENT DID NOT LIKE HIS VIEWS.
A FAR CRY FROM THE CREEPS WHO CALL THEMSELVES LIBERALS, TODAY.
gravenimage says
Wellington wrote:
Freedom, and I mean real freedom, gravenimage, and as certainly you understand it, is in dire danger…
………………..
Very true, Wellington.
The poster “Keep Calm and Carry On” is now famous–which I learned my mother was familiar with when she was stationed with the Ministry of Information during WWII as a young woman (one of the few at the time who knew about it since the poster was never revealed to the public).
But my favorite in the series is actually “Freedom is in Peril–Defend It With All Your Might”.
Here it is:
http://www.thecommentator.com/system/articles/inner_pictures/000/000/668/commentary_thumb/b3b10770c5cf647155be5d9ebcb9b53c4f038c99.jpg?1349455153
I have this poster in my studio. Its brave legacy makes it very heartening.
And thanks again for your kind words, Wellington. I feel the same way about you.
Wellington says
Thanks for that link, gravenimage. Freedom is in peril but it does have a powerful ally on its side—–the truth. So, I remain skeptically optimistic if that makes any sense. Take care, my friend.
Dexter L. Wilson says
Why would you destroy private property, prevent conservative speakers from speaking on your campus unless you are afraid the people who might listen will come to their senses? That is the only real reason these thugs operate this way. They are using the Saul Alinsky tried and true method of maintaining power over the people. Everyone needs to get a a copy Of “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” by Arcadia Films produced by EWTN. I got a copy for $21 total, you might have to pay more but you will soon discover that Democrats, progressives and liberals are closet socialists and communists using these other names to lull you into believing they are on the level when they are amoral just as Obama’s and Clinton’s mentor Saul Alinsky was. They will cover themselves in what you may think is moral only to discover the scorpion on the back of the frog will sting because that is their nature. Bella Dodd leader of the Communist Party in the 30’s was quoted as well as Alexander Trachtenberg and Norman Thomas the leaders of the Socialist Parties of the 40’s told their people to call themselves democrats, progressives and liberals to seem more lovable.
Linda Goudsmit says
I have coined a new word to describe this unprecedented deception – Alinskiyya. The new word Alinskiyya means lying to promote Socialism and is parallel to taqiyya – lying to promote Islam. Saul Alinsky described this deliberate deception when he advised his revolutionaries to cut their hair, put on a suit, and blend in. Alinsky was teaching them a form of taqiyya because his tactic was to deliberately deceive people into believing that because you look like them you also think like them. The Arab world is familiar with taqiyya because it is a tactic that is encouraged to promote Islam. The West never had an equivalent word because the Enlightenment did not teach deception – it taught truth, freedom, pluralism, and the free exchange of ideas to debate the relative merits of an issue. It was Barack Obama who introduced Alinskiyya into American culture. His disingenuous campaign slogan of hope and change disguised his intention to transform America into Socialism – he was practicing Alinskiyya.
terry says
I met Norman Thomas (in the middle and late 1960’s-early 1970’s).
He was (admitted, he was advanced in age, at the times I met and heard him, and briefly-privately debated with him), but he was not violent. he was open to listen to other viewpoints, and discuss them.
He also, was not really ( my views of him–I was between 15 and about 20 or 21 when we met; we had brief -passionate and respectful debates each time, privately, and he also did the same with others) was that he was more for equality and improvements for people rather than a violent revolution or totalitarianism. He just did not trust capitalists. Nor, did he trust the communists.
Terry says
One problem that I see on the Internet-re-responding to articles, other commentators, etc.
Newsmax, Townhall, others, need to USe FB., OR DISQUS OR SIMILAIR, OR GMAIL- AND IF DON”T GIVE (ON GMAIL) PERMISSION TO – WHATEVER, THEY DON’T ALLOW YOU TO SIGN IN.
I am NOT on FB; and plan to stay that way; Disqus is weird-i signed on, then send me a new password, then can’t sign on, gave up. with gmail-I don’t want their ads, or them selling my email, etc.
In my view, each site (like JW, and a few others)- can respond TO THAT SITE. PERIOD.
With data breeches, etc- and FB (at least) being somewhat far left ( and not paying any US taxes, from what I heard)- I don’t want them checking me out; my views; and IP addresses.
But, i do beleive in open debate. lefties don’t
TL says
Terry, as you imply with your final remark, debate with the deranged and criminally insane is useless and impossible. In fact, wastes valuable time while they grown in number and strength. Even the attempt to debate them confers upon them a dignity to which they have no valid claim. Marx, Engels, Bebel, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Kim, Castro, Chavez, and so on were unmurderable, as were the lesser lights who supported them in the classrooms, the newsrooms, and the book publishers’ offices. All that was lacking to prevent their rise to power was the courage to think the thoughts prohibited by the weak minded and the foolish.
gravenimage says
I think such debate *does* serve a purpose–not to change the minds of those who are committed to stupidity or evil, but for the benefit of any sane and decent people–even if they are currently confused–in the audience.
Seeing such ugly nonsense neatly dismantled can be *very* instructive.
This is why Robert Spencer continues to debate Muslims.
TL says
Agreed. Debate, if we must call it that, about Islam can be and should be useful. But what would be the point of the debating society if it fails to arrange and harmonize a powerful faction of ambitious antimuslims? And what would be the point of any anti-jihad faction if it is comprised of people who never get around to doing the right thing to Islam’s crooks?
So what is the real objective of JW?
I think that it’s mostly just to provide someone with a job and a career and a reason to feel that he’s doing something to bring about a great recidivism to the dark old days of Christian supremacism.
terry says
I find your comment objectionable, And the line Christian supremacy.
As Gravenimage and others have pointed out, NOT ALL here are Christians. I, am Jewish . Wellington is agnostic (I beleive); others are Hindus; atheists; I beleive Buddhists and a few other groups.
And, Christianity is not monolithic.
There used to be a mystery/adventure series of books ‘ THE SAINT”. (novels and short stories, and i think a few became movies) ( from the 1930’s or 40’s through at least the 1950’s if not into the 1960’s).
Anyhow, there was a short story, written about 1950 or so, set in Haiti. And the idea or question of VOODOO COMES UP. And someone says, (paraphrasing) that there are ——————(I don’t recall the numbers) of Protestant religions; and several branches of Judaism; and some different Orthodox churches, and Hindus, Buddhists ( and goes on). So who is to know what is correct?
I use that- what is Christian supremacy? In modern times, Christians aren’t going around, world wide, kkilling people who aren’t Christian, or Christian enough.
gravenimage says
TL wrote:
So what is the real objective of JW?
I think that it’s mostly just to provide someone with a job and a career and a reason to feel that he’s doing something to bring about a great recidivism to the dark old days of Christian supremacism.
……………………………
Well, this is *just grotesque*.
Firstly, Robert Spencer is a respected scholar–he does not need Jihad Watch to provide himself with a job.
And what he does is *damn dangerous*–do you see the periodic stories where he shares some of the truly horrific death threats he receives? And in Garland, Texas, at the Muhammad Cartoon show, a Jihadist showed up intent on massacring everyone in attendance. If it had not been for a sharp-eyed off-duty cop, he would have been killed.
He could have had any number of safe jobs in academia–and he would not have to pay for expensive security all the time, either.
And Spencer is no Christian supremacist. He is a devout Catholic, but he only mentions that here where it is salient to the story–which is quite rarely. He does not preach or proselytize here. Everyone is welcome–Christians of other denominations, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, and Agnostics and Atheists.
And that is not just true of posters–frequent Jihad Watch contributor Hugh Fitzgerald is a committed Atheist.
As to the idea that what Jihad Watch does is useless, this is false–there are *far* more readers than there are regular posters here. The main purpose of this site is to educate.
Many who post here are also active out in the world.
What is it that *you* are doing, besides insulting Anti-Jihadists here?
gravenimage says
Fine post, Terry.
Custos Custodum says
DISQUS is almost certainly an intelligence front to harvest sigint (signals intelligence) about POLITICAL OPINIONS.
Think about it: what better way to harvest personal and political opinions in concentrated form on a HUGE scale without having to pick them out from among masses of unrelated data traffic from and to a subject’s computer?
Of course, as is now publicly admitted (!), FB, Gmail and many others also grant extensive backdoor access to the NSA, CIA, FBI and local “law enforcement.”
Blue-eyed readers will now tell us that they are not doing anything illegal (doubtful – check with your lawyer) and don’t mind letting three-letter agencies snoop on all their Internet traffic (and of course on yours as well) “if it helps save even a single life or prevent a single of violence.”
This superstition was addressed a long time ago:
sog says
Hilarious. Since I heard what they have to say, and reject it, I guess if I think they’re going to say it again I’ve got to wear a mask, carry a stupid flag, and toss M80’s at old ladies.
Dry Academy says
When you translate all this Newspeak verbal diarrhea, what it really means is that only Leftist speech should be allowed, and anything which contradicts Leftist ideology should be outlawed.
Ban leftism as hate speech.
gravenimage says
Yup.
Carlos Danger says
Refuse to be silenced, and refuse to pay for our oppressors.
If YOUR alma mater stifles free speech, send the begging letter back without a check and tell them why. Urge your friends, family and fellow alums to do the same.
Cause trouble…speak-up,make a stink.
Tjhawk says
“Higher education, which maintains particularly high standards of what is worthy of debate”
I could not stop laughing. Gallows humor to be sure, but still, I could not stop laughing.
gravenimage says
They are everywhere.
Matthieu Baudin says
“…the white nationalist Richard Spencer…”
Shouldn’t that read – ‘the slightly brown Islamic Texts Authority Robert Spencer’ ?
Guy Jones says
“It means balancing the inherent value of a given view ….”
————
Therein lies the inherent stupidity and totalitarianism of the Leftist viewpoint on free speech, encapsulated in this statement. The Leftists believe that the intrinsic merits of speech should be weighed — and, of course, they are the ones who are anointed the cultural and sociopolitical gatekeepers who will conduct the weighing.
Joe says
Okay Ulrich, it is my “experience” that your article “invalidate”s my “humanity”. By your own analysis, you should never be allowed to write again. It is “for the public good”.
Linda Goudsmit says
This is an extremely chilling perspective and a giant leap toward making Orwellian 1984 a reality.
In true Obama-style the author attempts to redefine free speech as any speech that speaks the left-wing liberal narrative which only gives voice to the “oppressed.” REALLY??? So, society is divided into the oppressed and the oppressors and the Left is going to decide who is who. Does this ignoramus not understand the danger inherent in his argument? His rationalizations completely undermine our foundational freedom of speech – without freedom of speech there is no freedom. Reading Baer’s article is like listening to an Islamist rationalize murder as “honor killing” and not murder – it is just a matter of opinion and definition.
The reason Islamists cannot live in peace with the West is that their cultural norms are diametrically opposed to Western norms. The Left are apologists for Islam because as moral relativists they believe that all opinions are equal and to say honor killing is murder would deny the Islamist his right to his opinion and his right kill his daughter. The Left is now redefining itself as being hostile to established Western cultural norms in much the same way. Baer’s definition of free speech is diametrically opposed to the established legal Constitutional meaning of free speech in America and much closer to the prohibitions on any speech in sharia law. Freedom of speech is always the first casualty of tyranny – the tyranny of the Left with its political correctness, censorship, and redefinition of free speech is following a well established historical pattern.
The pervasive moral relativism in Baer’s argument is absolutely stunning and the concept of objective reality is thoroughly absent. The problem for societies based on moral relativism is that they necessarily become lawless. Laws codify agreed upon cultural norms because without them there is anarchy. So if you want to really delve into why this article is so deeply disturbing you are looking at a tenured NYU professor unapologetically teaching anarchy.
Students of history understand that anarchy is followed by tyranny. In this century anarchy is being fomented by radical Liberalism and radical Islamism – both seeking to transform and rule the world. Islamists want a religious caliphate and sharia law – the Left wants secular socialism (Liberalism is their religion) and ultimately internationalized government via the UN (arguably the most corrupt international organization in existence). Chaos is transformative and the social chaos created by Islamists and anarchists is being fomented by the globalist elite who fully intend to rule BOTH. The Left and the Islamists may have common cause to destroy America from within but both are just useful idiots for the globalist elites who plan to foment enough chaos that the US government falls. American sovereignty supported by Donald Trump’s America-first policies is the single greatest obstacle to one-world government for both the radical Left and the Islamists. If their coalition succeeds in their efforts to destabilize and topple American sovereignty/Donald Trump a police state will fill the power vacuum and then what follows will shock both the useful idiots on the Left and the useful idiot Islamists. It will be the globalist elites who will take over, internationalize the police force, and finally impose their own self-serving vision of one-world government.
English aristocrat Bertrand Russell described this insidious plan in chilling detail in 1952 in his book The Impact of Science on Society. The globalist elites envision a dystopian binary socio-political system of a very few ruling elite and an enslaved population who serve them. There will be no national sovereignty, no middle class, no upward mobility, no individual freedoms, no social justice – only masters and slaves – the rest of humanity will be unapologetically eliminated. Their grand design required destruction of all national sovereignty particularly superpower America and so they exported Tavistock Institute to America to begin their massive project of indoctrination and social engineering. The goal was to destroy America from within. The end of free speech is the end of America.
I don’t know where this NYU professor was schooled, but he earned his degree from Tavistock Institute.
gravenimage says
Linda Goudsmit, your idea that science and technology *prevent* a middle class and upward mobility is mistaken. It is stagnant societies with no innovation–think purely Islamic societies like Afghanistan and Somalia–that have virtually no middle class or social mobility.
Linda Goudsmit says
You have misunderstood me gravenimage. Bertrand Russell wrote that the society with science on its side will use the science to destroy any opposition to their one-world government. So, in today’s terms the globalist elites who are fomenting the social chaos provided by Islamists and Leftists also control the science – whether it is arms, munitions, bombs, or bioterrorism. When there is enough social chaos in the world that the people surrender their civil rights for “safety” the globalist elites will fill the power vacuum and use their science (perhaps bioterrorism) to destroy the Islamists and Leftists who have served their purpose (useful idiots) and are no longer necessary. The globalist elite will then be the rulers of the world. The sinister plan was described in 1952.
brane pilot says
I have never heard “If you disagree with me, you have no rights.” stated with so many words.
This is sterile, pseudo-intellectualism at its worst.
Denny Lee Penticoff says
Two salient points emerge from this distorted discourse to justify closing the door to free speech in a pubic forum like a university, both of which are absurd:
1. Feelings or emotive experience is a component of objective truth.
A + B + Feeling = C
2. Some topics are unworthy of an open forum.
An innate component of totalitarianism is censorship of ideas and arguments that flow against the coerced status quo. The governing body that predetermines the acceptability of the topic typically imposes criminal sanctions against its expression. Minimally, this situation is oligarchical, as in the case of a university permitting one group to shut out the expression of another point of view.
The emotive rationale to justify expansive logic to determine objective truth falls on its face. The truth does not stretch. It is or is not.
Robert says
More post-modern garbage. Bad prose, worse ideas.
In the future, if things get righted, people will look back at the Left with fear and loathing. The movement is truly despicable. It is so much ideological crud dressed-up as smart, sophisticated, and cutting edge. But when you actually read their material, you realize the Emperor has no clothes!
The Left has been peddling intellectual, philosophical JUNK for decades (in fact, more than a century and a half). And only the young, the stupid, or the venal embrace it. Because mature, intelligent, moral human beings would never think that cultural Marxism, Feminism, Identity Politics, or Black Power Politics is good for society. These socio-political movements destroy society — they ruin what is good, noble, and true. In fact, all these ideologies are designed to destroy what is good, noble, and true. That’s why they are known as revolutionary, radical, and extreme.
The Left is embraced an extreme political position that has purposed not to co-exist with opponents, but to vilify, marginalize, disenfranchise, and destroy the opposition. They are deadly to our way of life. If you actually take the time to listen to their thought-leaders, the philosophers who inform the ideas at the heart of the movement, you quickly realize they consider their movement as an all-out war against anyone who disagrees with them.
I studied their philosophy years ago as an undergraduate; in some ways, I embraced their agenda. But when it finally dawned on me where they were headed, I bailed out. They are aiming for the total destruction of Western Civilization, Christian society, true liberal society, the American project, etc. The main philosophers are very, very candid about their aims.
Geppetto says
“….the rights to expression in higher education, which maintains particularly high standards of what is worthy of debate….”
So, after plodding through this “lofty, intellectual” discourse the conclusion is made clear. “Free speech” is what “higher education” says is “worthy of debate.” If you don’t agree then shut your stupid mouth.
Vivarto says
The amazing thing is that NYT published this word salad.
All this noise just to say that those with whom the leftists disagree should be censured…