In that last post, I quoted The New York Times citing a survey in which the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression was involved. If you go to FIRE’s website, you will find an able argument that colleges should not fire faculty who, for instance, publish childish remarks about a murder.
Not that I argue they should necessarily be fired. But I do believe their behavior indicates the college was unwise in hiring them, and should do what it can to instill in them a sense of responsibility regarding what they choose to publish. Academics are expected to have deep respect for the power of publication. A snotty social media post written after a few too many for the entertainment of one’s friends is publication, on steroids. It will be instantaneously available to the whole planet, and it will be read by thousands or even millions of times as many people as viewed that thesis you agonized over so carefully — including your students.
Here’s that FIRE piece, which I urge you to read: You can’t fire your way to free speech.
It’s point, in essence, is that “When a college caves to outrage, it invites more censorship and sends the message that no speech is safe.”
That’s not the essay’s only point, but it’s the best one it makes, so I’m addressing that.
What that sentence says is entirely correct. It describes the current dysfunction of our society. Too often, we now do everything in anticipation to how others will react to it — and they far, far too often react irrationally, without carefully examining your good reasons for doing whatever you’ve done.
It’s just a perception problem, but it’s still a real one. Say you fire, or otherwise discipline, those faculty members.
The buffoons running for governor will be all puffed up and see that — in terms of the cheap things they value — they have “won,” and will proceed to step up the bullying.
Meanwhile, those who might otherwise defend the fired people will be cowed, and think they can’t express anything freely.
And then someone like ABC will suspend someone like Jimmy Kimmel, who is a professional smartass, paid and encouraged to say outrageous things, rather than a college professor. I haven’t seen anything yet that justifies such a move. (In fact, at some point last night or this morning, I saw some remarks by Kimmel in which he spoke against attitudes such as those expressed by the Clemson employees. But now I can’t find them. when I do, I’ll share that with you.)
And that action will snowball with terrible effect.
But these things — the emboldenment of GOP pols, the cowardice of other institutions, and other knee-jerk reactions — are the result of a central problem of politics in America at this point: Few people examine anything at a depth greater than a tweet, or, if they’re old-fashioned, a bumper sticker.
But you know what? Universities are supposed to be the antidote to that grotesque superficiality. They’re supposed to instill an ability and inclination to look deeply into things before drawing a conclusion. And even in these troubled times, they have an effect somewhat in keeping with that mission. For instance, in 2020, 56 percent of people who had never been to college voted for Trump, and only 41 percent for Biden.
Of course, that’s not enough. The ability of colleges to teach people to think carefully has obviously eroded when 32 percent of those with postgraduate degrees can justify voting for such a destructive candidate at Trump (although 67 of them went with Biden, so again, there is some salutary effect — the more education, the more thoughtful the voter).
(By the way, before one of you ones-and-zeroes folk points out I’m being partisan in the past two paragraphs, I refer you to everything I’ve ever written on Donald Trump. I am someone who voted for Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and John McCain, along with many other Republicans. But as I’ve explained over and over, there is a gigantic wall of logical and moral difference between Trump and everyone who has ever captured the nomination of either major party is in an entirely separate category from this most unworthy and grossly unsuitable man. A vote for him for any office, much less the most powerful one in the world, is intellectually and morally indefensible. Hence my use of those statistics.)
Nevertheless, within the walls of the academy, educators and their bosses should redouble their efforts to base their decisions on sound, well-grounded reasoning. If the administrators decide after careful discernment that they should dismiss someone who has done something wildly inconsistent with “sound, well-grounded reasoning,” they should act accordingly, and defend it with that same careful discernment that went into the decision.
Likewise, if they decide after such discernment to defend the faculty under attack, they should stand by that decision, and if necessary defend that decision with arguments far deeper than the twitch level. In other words, with statements deeper than social media and bumper stickers.
You should do that without regard to how shallowly millions of people will react.
Anyway, that’s what I think about FIRE’s strongest argument. As our friend Bryan would say, your mileage may vary.
Related Posts
Nothing I have ever written on this blog was anything I would have said in public. That’s why I attach my name to my views. Yet you, the arbiter of truth and civility, decided to start deleting my comments because they were too harsh towards anonymous trolls or too frequently criticized Joe Biden (with facts).
You’ve been on a 10 year (failed) mission to try and convince the world that Donald Trump is the worst human being. To what end besides riling up yourself and people who (misguidedly) think like you do?
Jimmy Kimmel was canceled because he lied about who killed Kirk. He suggested it was a MAGA follower when there was no evidence of that at all and far more evidence that he was a brainwashed liberal/trans supporter.
Let’s see you put your money where your mouth is. I dare you to commit to not delete any more of my posts. Support free speech.
Nope. Not gonna to that.
Maybe I’d consider it if you indicated an understanding of why your comments are so often not approved. If you continue to assert that I do it in some sort of lame attempt to “defend Joe Biden,” I definitely won’t even consider it. (By contrast, you’re correct in saying that I disallow your uncivil attacks on other commenters, however you choose to justify yourself.)
Your problem is that too often, you mischaracterize what I have said, or what my motives are for my actions. Too often, what you say is a much bigger lie than the stupid, thoughtless thing Kimmel said about the MAGA people. As you know, I’ve fought many time-consuming battles about the difference between getting it wrong and lying. Calling what Kimmel said a lie is unsupported by anything I’ve read thus far. I say that as someone who doesn’t much like Kimmel. I do like Stephen Colbert, although I often disagree with him.
Anyway, when you say some of the untrue things you say (and this goes for others whose comments are not approved), I am presented with two acceptable options:
1. I waste time explaining what’s wrong with the comment, and how it inaccurately characterizes what has been said here, by me or anyone else. Because one thing I’m not going to do is allow something inaccurate, unfair and uncivil be the last word on the subject. I won’t do that. This is a blog dedicated to being an alternative to the ridiculous, ranting garbage found everywhwere else. If I let something that violates that stand as the last word, then the little time I have available to keep this blog going, even on an occasional basis, is a waste.
2. I disallow the comment, and avoid wasting time. I have very, very little time to spend here, and I can’t spend it answering nonsense that violates the blog’s purpose. I can’t once again explain, “No, that’s not what I said. What i said was THIS, and here’s why I said it.” That’s a stupid, Sisyphean waste of precious time.
And look. I’ve done it again — murdered all these innocent, irretrievable minutes….
Right wing radio show hosts that use the public airwaves lie about Democrats and liberals every day – straight out lies- not even counting the times they are threatening them or calling them vile names.
Lying can’t be the standard to cancel or fire anyone on tv or radio.
I wouldn’t claim Donald Trump is the worst human being. I would claim, accurately, that he’s lying, vile, decrepit scum- same thing he’s called other people including Joe Biden and President Obama.
“Lying can’t be the standard to cancel or fire anyone on tv or radio.”
I disagree entirely. Not on “cancelling,” because I generally despise tar-and-feathers mob action. But firing, yes.
We lived in a world in which we generally agreed on that, quite recently. We also agreed that a politician caught lying habitually was on his way out the door.
I’ve refrained from commenting here and other places for a while for exactly this reason: Few people examine anything at a depth greater than a tweet, or, if they’re old-fashioned, a bumper sticker.
I enjoy conversations about issues. I’m curious. I want to learn. I welcome opportunities to rethink my opinions, but social media has reduced conversations to We’re right about everything. You’re wrong about everything. Not long ago, a (now former) Facebook “friend” accused me of hating America because I expressed a negative opinion of a president who doesn’t know if everyone has a right to due process. What makes it worse is I’ve come to realize that many people form their opinions after reading only a headline or an unvetted social media post. And once they have formed an opinion, they are unable to consider any alternatives.
And THAT’S why I want you on this blog, because this forum’s central purpose is to serve as a place who enjoy conversations about issues, are curious, and want to learn.
Ironically, that has made me far less tolerant of comments that are not offered in that open-minded, tolerant spirit. If you come here to yell, berate, lecture, corrent, and generally abuse other people in the room, you can expect not to see your comments approved. That doesn’t mean I ban people. Unfortunately, in some cases, I bar most of their comments — but not all.
This is still something that some people don’t get, and it makes them angry. They think their Right to Be Published is being violated, when there is no such right. I publish that which is consistent with the blog’s purpose. If they want to publish something else, the whole internet is open to them.
I know I don’t need to explain that to you, Norm. I just say it to assure you that I’m doing all I can to make this a place for the kinds of conversations you and I both appreciate…