E-Pluribus | February 15, 2024
Racism 2.0; the 1st Amendment doesn't have an age limit; and take politics off your Valentine's Day list.
A round-up of the latest and best musings on the rise of illiberalism in the public discourse:
Coleman Hughes: Coleman Hughes on the New Racism
Yesterday’s round-up featured an interview with one of Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech writers, who stressed how far America has come in its battle against racism. Also at The Free Press, Coleman Hughes says not all that change has been positive, because a new, insidious form of racism has arisen.
[. . .] The Myth of Black Weakness. Neoracists say to qualify as racism, discrimination, stereotyping, prejudice, hatred, or hostility need to target people who lack power in society. They say only white people have power. As a result, neoracists insist that discriminating against white people on the basis of their skin color, promoting invidious white stereotypes, being prejudiced against white people, and expressing hatred or hostility toward them on account of their race doesn’t count as racism.
Neoracists stereotype white people, but they also stereotype black people. Neoracists depict black people as being emotionally fragile—almost childlike. They portray black people as being in a state of constant emotional vulnerability and need. Similarly, some neoracists have suggested that black people aren’t inclined toward hard work or self-reliance.
The Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture even included a graphic on its website (which was later removed) claiming that hard work, self-reliance, and the nuclear family were attributes of “white dominant culture.”
The book Dismantling Racism: A Workbook for Social Change Groups by Kenneth Jones and Tema Okun was adopted by the former schools chancellor of New York City, Richard Carranza, as part of an administrator training program. The book lists several traits of “White Supremacy Culture,” including perfectionism, objectivity, and “worship of the written word,” which it describes as a tendency to more highly value people with strong documentation and writing skills. It’s difficult to imagine a more insulting and demeaning image of black people—or of any people. Yet this stereotype is a part of the neoracist worldview.
At this moment in American history, we have a choice. We can follow neoracists down the path of endless racial strife, or we can recommit ourselves to the principles that motivated the civil rights movement—and not just the civil rights movement but also the abolitionist movement and other movements around the world that oppose unjust discrimination. Those principles include a belief in our common humanity—the idea that what it takes for human beings to flourish has nothing essential to do with our skin color or ancestry or any of the other traits that people have used throughout history to divide themselves.
Read the whole thing.
Elizabeth Nolan Brown: Kids Have First Amendment Rights Too, Federal Judge Reminds State Lawmakers
Children must attain adulthood before acquiring the full rights and privileges of citizenship, but Elizabeth Nolan Brown writes at Reason that First Amendment protection is not one of those limited rights. Brown looks at a recent ruling in a Ohio lawsuit over restrictions on minors’ use of certain internet platforms and the competing principles in question in the case.
An Ohio law requiring that people under age 16 get parental permission to use social media is unconstitutional, a federal judge held this week.
[. . .]
Marbley's ruling is the latest in a string of federal court orders against state laws intended to limit minors' social media or require platforms to follow special rules for users under the age of 18. Meanwhile, similar measures are still spreading like a bad viral meme throughout U.S. statehouses.
[. . .]
"Like other States before it, Ohio has unconstitutionally tried to limit certain minors' access to protected and valuable speech on the Internet," argued NetChoice in a complaint filed in January. The group argues that Ohio's parental consent for social media law is unconstitutional in multiple ways.
The law interferes with minors' right to access and engage in protected speech, it "baldly discriminates among online operators based on the type of speech they publish," and its provisions are also "unconstitutionally vague," NetChoice argued. For these reasons, it violates the First Amendment rights of Ohioans under age 16 and the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of tech companies.
The law would apply to online entities that allow users to interact socially, construct profiles, and create or post content when such an entity "targets children, or is reasonably anticipated to be accessed by children"—a rather porous category. "Websites have no way to know what this means," NetChoice argued in its complaint.
[. . .]
Judge Marbley does not seem persuaded by Yost's argument. After issuing a temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement against NetChoice or its member groups back in January, Marbley this week granted NetChoice's motion for a preliminary injunction, extending that temporary block on enforcement as the case plays out.
"The Act regulates speech in multiple ways: (1) it regulates operators' ability to publish and distribute speech to minors and speech by minors; and (2) it regulates minors' ability to both produce speech and receive speech," wrote Marbley, adding that there is no "contract exception" to free speech rights.
"In the State's view, the Act is a regulation striking at the commercial aspect of the relationship between social media platforms and their users, not the speech aspect of the relationship," noted Marbley. "But this Court does not think that a law prohibiting minors from contracting to access to a plethora of protected speech can be reduced to a regulation of commercial conduct." Thus, the judge agreed with NetChoice that the law restricts minors' First Amendment rights.
Read it all here.
Alexandra Hudson: Politics Wasn’t Meant to be Loved
In a media-saturated world, it’s difficult to get away from politics. But that doesn’t mean we have to love it, argues Alexandra Hudson at The Dispatch. It also doesn’t mean we can’t love those of a different political persuasion. Hudson has several suggestions for regaining a proper perspective.
The Financial Times recently reported that men and women, especially among Gen Z, are increasingly diverging politically. Over the past 20 years, women between the ages of 18 and 29 have become considerably more liberal, while men in the same age cohort have become slightly more conservative. Given that most people marry those who are like them—including politically—some worry the findings spell trouble for the future of relationships, marriage, and family formation. This being Valentine’s Day, however, let’s reflect not just on how growing political divisions are pillaging our romantic relationships, but on how toning down our obsession with politics might yield a change of heart.
[. . .]
Allowing one aspect of a person—their political views—to stand in for the sum total of a longstanding relationship, or allowing political differences to keep a relationship from happening in the first place, is both unduly reductive and essentializing of the other. Doing so ignores that we all come to our views of the world for many reasons. It’s also a personal tragedy: When we see the world through the cheapened simplicity of litmus tests of purity, we hurt others and ourselves.
[. . .]
It’ll involve putting politics back in its proper place, recovering the mental territory it currently occupies. When politics is the primary lens through which we view the world—when our own political beliefs are the most important things in our lives—it’s easier to demonize those who disagree with us and to justify cutting people out of our lives and out of society. So we’ll need to desaturate our lives of politics, and then fill the gap with life-giving, soul-enriching pursuits that will make civility in our politics both better and possible. Among these pursuits, I propose three: curiosity, friendship, and a renewed appreciation for beauty.
[. . .]
To better equip us for life together, we must build habits of introducing the sublime into our daily lives. After a long day at the office or an afternoon spent in traffic, we can rejuvenate ourselves by looking up at the stars at night, or reading a poem, or listening to a song, or contemplating a work of art that enriches our interior life. The 20th century philosopher Iris Murdoch made a similar point about the imperative to “unself,” letting the power of beauty and nature displace us from the center of our universe and to instead focus on others and the world around us. The practice of “unselfing” is an essential part of seeing our personal relationships survive, and seeing our society sustained.
Read it all.
Around Twitter (X)
Climate researcher Roger Pielke Jr. received a disturbing response from SpringerNature—one of the most influential academic publishers in the world—after submitting a paper to one of its science journals:
Despite repeated stories of wokeness filtering down from the Great White North, a recent survey indicates that Canadians generally reject the extremes:
And finally, did you hear the one about the college professor? As President Biden might say (and say and say and say and say): not a joke. (Click to watch.)