E-Pluribus | November 1, 2022
Toddlers of any age just want what they want, but don't know how to get it; the Disinformation Governance Board by any other name is still a bad idea; and discrimination is never justice.
A round-up of the latest and best writing and musings on the rise of illiberalism in the public discourse:
Robert Tracinski: Moral Toddlers Making a Mess
Throwing soup? Mashed potatoes? You’re probably a toddler. Or a toddler in climate protestor’s clothing, as several incidents at art museums have recently revealed. Writing for Quillette, Robert Tracinski examines the tactics and motives of these attention-seeking vandals and warns that if we give in, we’ll be just as sorry as parents who let little tyrants run their homes.
Why do toddlers throw tantrums? Because they need something—food, a toy, a nap—but they don’t know what they need or how to ask for it. It’s not their fault; they’re too young to know. Hopefully, their parents will teach them, with a combination of firmness and patience, how to identify what they need, how to communicate it, and how to be patient.
Why do 20-year-old protesters throw tantrums? Same reason. They want something and have absolutely no idea how to get it.
But what do they want? Is it a political goal? Ostensibly yes, but one that is too vague to constitute an actual agenda. The name of their group, “Just Stop Oil,” sums up the mindset. It is a demand, not a program.
[ . . . ]
What the protesters actually want is to feel morally important: to be heroes in a fight of good against evil, and to be better than everyone else. But they have absolutely no idea how to achieve this. So they act out like toddlers in the hope that pitching a fit will get them what they want. And we generally give it to them.
Read the whole thing.
Joe Lancaster: DHS Still Policing Disinformation Despite Dissolving Disinformation Governance Board
The official Disinformation Governance Board of the Department of Homeland Security was disbanded earlier this year, but unofficially DHS has continued the government’s (apparently successful) attempt to lean on private businesses to stop what DHS considers mis- or disinformation as reported by The Intercept’s Lee Fang. Joe Lancaster of Reason summarizes Fang’s findings.
The DHS announced the Disinformation Governance Board in April specifically to address Russian disinformation and false information spread by border traffickers.
[ . . . ]
Less than three weeks after the initial announcement, the DHS "paused" the board's rollout, and Jankowicz resigned. After DHS advisers indicated no need for such a board in the first place, Mayorkas dissolved it in August.
[ . . . ]
But reporting from The Intercept this week indicates that the government is indeed actively involved in policing disinformation, often pressuring private companies to do so on its behalf.
The outlet cites a number of both public and leaked documents showing internal DHS deliberations regarding influencing websites and social media platforms.
[ . . . ]
Policing misinformation also poses numerous risks to free speech. This was one of the justifications initially given for shutting down the Disinformation Governance Board. With narrow exceptions, false statements are protected by the First Amendment, and any broad efforts to restrict misinformation would have a chilling effect on other speech.
Read it all.
David French: Racial Discrimination Is Not the Path to Racial Justice
As we noted yesterday, the Supreme Court is currently considerings some cases that could significantly impact affirmative action. The Dispatch’s David French spells out why the corrective discrimination of affirmative action is still discrimination, still wrong, and still not justice regardless of noble intentions.
The moral necessity of ameliorating the effects of centuries of discrimination is clear; the method for doing so is not. But here’s one principle that should guide our nation’s response: The wounds caused by racial discrimination can’t be healed by racial discrimination.
Indeed, when it comes to American education, that is exactly what the plain letter of the law requires. Here’s the text of the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a law that applies to every educational institution in the United States that receives federal funding:
“No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Clear enough, right? This is the legal mandate to end programs and practices that systematically disadvantaged Americans on the basis of nothing more than the color of their skin. And yet the Supreme Court has rejected that language…
They can’t impose strict racial quotas, and they can’t (in theory) use race against any applicant, but they can consider race as one part of an allegedly “holistic” admissions review. The Court has held that there is a “compelling governmental interest” in academic diversity, and racial considerations are one way to advance that interest.
Read it all here.
Around Twitter
Part of a thread on the insidious influence of the Chinese Communist Party throughout the world, and how universities in America have been used to that end. Click through for it all.
Via the Dispatch, here’s the beginning of a thread based on Nick Catoggio’s (Allahpundit) latest column on how left and right Twitter handle tragedy. Click through for it all.
And finally, evolutionary biologist Heather Heying on woke hypocrisy:
