PLURIBUS

Share this post

E-Pluribus | March 23, 2022

www.pluri.blog

Discover more from PLURIBUS

Providing original commentary and aggregating the best work on the illiberal impulses that threaten freedom and social cohesion.
Over 1,000 subscribers
Continue reading
Sign in
Today's Best Arguments

E-Pluribus | March 23, 2022

Why the freedom to argue about free speech is important, the lack of accountability in the Hunter Biden laptop debacle, and the real impact of "diversity" requirements on college admissions.

Jeryl Bier
Mar 23, 2022
1
Share this post

E-Pluribus | March 23, 2022

www.pluri.blog
Share

A round up of the latest and best writing and musings on the rise of illiberalism in the public discourse:

Cathy Young: Our Nasty, Stupid, Frivolous Cancel Culture Fights (That We’re Lucky Enough to Have)

At The Bulwark, Cathy Young has found the pony in the pile of manure that is cancel culture discourse. While concerns about freedom of speech and open, civil dialogue is thoroughly justified, we should not lose sight of the fact that we are still free to have even silly quarrels when we consider the authoritarianism that plagues much of the world these days.

What people have in mind when they talk about today’s culture of intolerance is more like the case of New York Times star science writer Donald McNeil, pressured to resign after a scandal stemming from a conversation with high school students in which he uttered a racial slur in the context of discussing whether someone should be punished for using it. Or the coerced resignation of Philadelphia Inquirer editor Stan Wischnowski, who had published an article arguing that property destruction from rioting associated with anti-racist protests was damaging to the community and used a headline some considered disrespectful to the Black Lives Matter movement (“Buildings Matter Too”). Or the controversy early in 2020 over the novel American Dirt by Jeanine Cummins, which was written to humanize the plight of migrants on the Mexican border but was viciously denounced because the author was too white, may have gotten some details wrong, and wrote two or three lines referencing a character’s brown skin—resulting in the cancelation of Cummins’s book tour.

In a Bulwark article last October, I discussed a fairly wide range of such cases, all involving “retaliation” and not just “criticism,” targeting business owners (whose only crime may have been an insufficiently enthusiastic expression of support for BLM during the protests in the summer of 2020), educators, writers, and TV personalities. I could easily list many more. Obviously, hard data are difficult to come by on an issue like this, considering that visible “cancelations” are the tip of the iceberg and it’s the chilling effect that may matter most. But, despite the flaws in the Times poll, the fact that nearly half of the respondents said they felt “less free” than ten years ago to express their political viewpoints in day-to-day situations, and more than a third felt less free to express their views on race relations, should be alarming.

[ . . . ]

Nonetheless, the culture of free speech and intellectual tolerance does matter, and the free exchange of opinions and ideas that is the lifeblood of liberal democracy can be severely curtailed by mob rule as well government—even if the mob is a digital one. Progressive censoriousness may not be the same as censorship, but it is very likely to undermine the robustness of First Amendment protections: Surveys already show that only 30 percent of all college students, compared to 57 percent of all American adults, understand that the First Amendment protects so-called hate speech. (Ocasio-Cortez’s dismissive remark about “[F]irst [A]mendment screeds” as a “service for the powerful” doesn’t exactly foster respect for First Amendment freedoms.)

Read the whole thing.

Gerard Baker: Hunter Biden’s Laptop and America’s Crisis of Accountability

Shortly before the 2020 election, many in the media and Big Tech downplayed and outright censored the New York Post’s story on the laptop and emails it contained that Hunter Biden abandoned in a computer repair shop. At the Wall Street Journal, Gerard Baker laments the lack of accountability for those complicit in burying the story.

We’ll never know what effect the “October Surprise” of 2020, the New York Post’s reporting of the discovery of a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden containing all sorts of embarrassing emails, might have had on the election that year if it had received wider circulation. Perhaps in a campaign dominated by Covid and characterized by chaos, it would have been another snowflake in the blizzard of news voters were being hit with.

[ . . . ]

It took its time, but last week the New York Times slipped the acknowledgment of the story’s accuracy deep in a report about Hunter Biden’s mounting legal problems. The Times, along with most other mass-circulation news organizations, had essentially ignored the story in the days when it might have made a difference, but it now says it has “authenticated” the laptop’s contents.

The concession from the paper, which serves as a sort of unofficial licensing authority for reporting by most of the rest of the media, prompted a predictable rush to self-vindication by those who had also trashed the story at the time. The Washington Post insisted its original decision not to touch it was justified because of uncertainty about its provenance.

Normally, when there is doubt about the provenance of an explosive story, news organizations consider it their job to ascertain the truth. Normally, it takes them less than 17 months to do so. But normally they don’t have the cover provided by technology companies that prevented people from reading the original story.

Read it all here.

Andrew I. Fillat and Henry I. Miller: Diversity Smokescreen

Although the comparison of diversity requirements for college admissions to reparations is sure to ruffle feathers, Andrew Fillat and Henry Miller argue at City Journal that their contention makes sense in light of the well-documented failure of such policies to live up to their promise. Whatever the good intentions, the harm done to individuals and to the primary education mission of such institutions does not justify the cost.

If universities stuck to their traditional priorities, the admissions criteria that matter most would be academic achievement and potential. Diversity of the student body would pertain only to socialization, the lowest of the educational priorities. Diversity of ideas and interests, however, contributes to higher-priority goals and thus deserves far more consideration than it gets. An applicant who designs robots or rockets, did an internship in an R&D lab, or wrote a published critical essay in high school should win extra points.

If racial preferences in admissions aren’t furthering the mission of a university, what are they doing? They become, effectively, a form of reparations, providing the potential “ticket” of a diploma to individuals who would otherwise have been deprived of that benefit based purely on academic merit. After all, a degree, particularly from a prestigious university, confers a lifetime benefit in terms of economic and other factors.

Though the idea of reparations to persons who have been wronged, as in restitution for theft, may have some justification, current university practices are different. They are a form of compensation (to the less-qualified students admitted) for past injury, given at the expense of those who bear no responsibility for the injury (the more qualified but rejected candidates). This is not “social justice,” or any kind of justice, which is correctly defined as the fair treatment of individuals.

The deeper question for the Supreme Court to decide in the battle over racial preferences is thus whether a university, private or public, should be allowed to dispense de facto reparations, even if existing law suggests that it is not permissible. This is essentially a preview of the sure-to-be contentious arguments that would arise if the federal government dispensed racially based reparations in monetary form to compensate for long-past injuries—something that California is actually considering. Thus, the Supreme Court’s ruling could affect many people beyond college applicants.

Read it all.

Around Twitter

Via the Foundation Against Racism and Intolerance, a short thread about a school board’s treatment of a concerned grandparent:

Twitter avatar for @fairforall_org
Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) @fairforall_org
In 2020, Curtis Thompson became concerned about the curriculum at his grandchildren's school. He believed it was promoting race-essentialism, including by encouraging students to group themselves by skin color. He began objecting. Fairforall.org/thompson-v-jef…
9:06 PM ∙ Mar 22, 2022
142Likes32Retweets
Twitter avatar for @fairforall_org
Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) @fairforall_org
The superintendent & board president worked together to prevent Mr. Thompson from voicing further objections at a school board meeting. They deliberately re-ordered agenda items to make it more difficult for him to speak & arranged for two security officers to be at the meeting.
9:07 PM ∙ Mar 22, 2022
43Likes3Retweets
Twitter avatar for @fairforall_org
Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) @fairforall_org
On August 17, 2021, Mr. Thompson began offering his comments in a civil manner. Within seconds, the board president called a recess and ordered a security officer to remove Mr. Thompson from the building—which the officer did. Mr. Thompson has now filed a 1st Amendment lawsuit.
9:07 PM ∙ Mar 22, 2022
58Likes4Retweets
Twitter avatar for @fairforall_org
Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) @fairforall_org
FAIR supports Mr. Thompson. The state may not silence an individual because it does not like the content of their speech. Mr. Thompson is represented by FAIR network attorney Daniel Rhoads of the Rhoads Law Firm in St. Louis. Read more about the case: Fairforall.org/thompson-v-jef…
Image
9:07 PM ∙ Mar 22, 2022
91Likes10Retweets

Conor Friedersdorf commented yesterday on a University of Virginia student newspaper editorial condemning a campus visit by former vice president Mike Pence. New York Times opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie took issue with Friedersdorf’s remarks. Excerpts of their back-and-forth are below:

Twitter avatar for @conor64
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
Mike Pence has spoken at dozens of colleges. There is zero evidence of any student ever being endangered as a result. But UVA's student newspaper editorializes that he must be kept off campus because "speech that threatens the lives of those on Grounds is unjustifiable."
9:59 PM ∙ Mar 22, 2022
1,214Likes132Retweets
Twitter avatar for @jbouie
b-boy bouiebaisse @jbouie
Here is the editorial in question and you can decide for yourself if the paper is editorializing that Pence must be kept off of campus. cavalierdaily.com/article/2022/0… My point is this: Pence isn’t being kept off campus. The University is not doing anything to block him.
Twitter avatar for @conor64
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
Mike Pence has spoken at dozens of colleges. There is zero evidence of any student ever being endangered as a result. But UVA's student newspaper editorializes that he must be kept off campus because "speech that threatens the lives of those on Grounds is unjustifiable."
10:28 AM ∙ Mar 23, 2022
541Likes43Retweets
Twitter avatar for @conor64
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@jbouie The point is to flag an actual example of a matter that is contested: whether there is bottom-up pressure in higher education to constrain campus discourse in illiberal ways based on wrongheaded theories and assertions about the relationship between speech and harm.
10:42 AM ∙ Mar 23, 2022
12Likes1Retweet
Twitter avatar for @jbouie
b-boy bouiebaisse @jbouie
@conor64 Why is this one illegitimate? Because it expresses a view you disagree with?
10:48 AM ∙ Mar 23, 2022
Twitter avatar for @conor64
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@jbouie I did not say it is "illegitimate." If I ran the paper and someone submitted it as an op-ed, I would run it. I believe it is wrongheaded and illustrative of a larger, alarming trend in campus opinion.
10:49 AM ∙ Mar 23, 2022

And finally, as I noted on Twitter last night, it did not take long after my Hyperbolic Discourse Is Literally Destroying Democracy essay went live for my thesis to receive support. And yes, he is serious.

1
Share this post

E-Pluribus | March 23, 2022

www.pluri.blog
Share
Previous
Next
Comments
Top
New
Community

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2023 PLURIBUS
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start WritingGet the app
Substack is the home for great writing