PLURIBUS

Share this post

E-Pluribus | October 13, 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 | October 13, 2022

The adults in the room need to be the adults in the room, science and equity and inclusion, and the New Puritans.

Jeryl Bier
Oct 13, 2022
Share this post

E-Pluribus | October 13, 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:

Rob Henderson: Adults Today Care Too Much What Young People Think

While adults clearly do not have a monopoly on wisdom and are perfectly capable of screwing up the world royally, experience and age count for something. Writing at Persuasion, Rob Henderson argues that adults need to rise to the occasion and not shy away from setting the young people straight and let the chops fall where they may.

[. . .] Growing up, I don’t recall adults caring what kids thought. . .

The educated class seems to have gone too far in the other direction. They care too much what kids think. Poor kids have neglectful parents; rich kids have helicopter parents. For better or worse, culture is largely dictated by this educated class.

Older people in this category are now reluctant to say that they have accrued some useful knowledge to share and wisdom to impart. But there is a massive hunger among young people for this. Part of the reason they behave so erratically is to test where the line is, and to see what knowledge older people can share to steady their anxieties.

Older adults are reluctant to exert authority. They want the prestige that comes with having power, but they don’t want the responsibility of exerting it when challenged by a bunch of naive and pampered kids who have faced zero percent of real life and its attendant hardships.

Read it all.

Lawrence Krauss: Now Even Science Grants Must Bow to ‘Equity and Inclusion’

Science is science, but some science is apparently more worthy of grant money than others if it checks the appropriate boxes regarding social concerns. Lawrence Krauss writes at The Wall Street Journal that the demographics of researchers may trump the actual research in proposals submitted to the Department of Energy for funding.

Starting in fiscal 2023, which began Oct. 1, every proposal responding to a solicitation from the [Energy Department] Office of Science is required to include a PIER plan, which stands for Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research, to “describe the activities and strategies of the applicant to promote equity and inclusion as an intrinsic element to advancing scientific excellence.” In the words of the announcement, “The complexity and detail of a PIER Plan is expected to increase with the size of the research team and the number of personnel to be supported.”

When I read this new requirement, I went back to the last grant proposal from our group—which involved exploring gravitational waves, the early universe, Higgs boson physics, neutrino cosmology, dark-matter detection, supersymmetry and black-hole physics. What does any of this have to do with diversity and inclusion? Nothing.

[. . .]

The extensive DEI bureaucracy at universities has already worked for decades to ensure that no STEM job announcements or hiring can be done without constant supervision to ensure that women and minorities are recruited. But given the strong wording of the new guidelines, existing programs may not be enough. This is worrisome, as university DEI boards have shown a willingness to torpedo job applications whose DEI component is insufficiently extensive or effusive. The new Energy Department review committees probably won’t behave differently.

Read the whole thing.

Noel Yaxley: The Cancel Cult

Puritans seem to be taking it on the chin these days, though more for their methods than their beliefs. At City Journal, Noel Yaxley reviews Andrew Doyle’s new book The New Puritans which examines how progressives often imitate the authoritarian impulses of a religious order they would otherwise eschew.

By religion, Doyle refers to a particular form of fundamentalism. He is careful to distinguish this group from the traditional notion of Puritanism. The New Puritans have nothing to do with post-Reformation England or the Protestant purification of Roman Catholicism. Nor does the New Puritanism have anything to do with abolishing sports on the Sabbath. It is an analogy Doyle uses to refer to an authoritarian ideology that seeks to engineer society in accordance with progressive beliefs.

Some, like Guardian columnist Owen Jones, still believe that cancel culture isn’t real. As they see it, despite brushes with controversy, artists like Dave Chappelle or J.K. Rowling are still performing comedy or publishing books. But Doyle provides an excellent riposte: the reason we know about these supposed counterexamples is precisely because they are famous. Many others “have neither the finances nor the influence to shield themselves from the depredations of the online mob”—like, say, Gillian Philip. The former children’s writer was dropped by her publishing house after she showed support for Rowling. She’s since retrained as a delivery driver, working in an industry she finds “a lot less misogynistic . . . than the world of children’s writing.”

Books on the culture wars abound. What sets Doyle’s apart is his tone. The accessible nature of his work is a testament to his former career as an English teacher. Gay, Labour-voting, and socially liberal, he is no reactionary. He doesn’t believe that racism, homophobia, and sexism have disappeared from society. What he does believe is that the ideology of today’s progressivism is at odds with genuine social progress.

Read it all here.

Around Twitter

Excerpts from a Jacob Mchangama thread on democracy and free speech:

Twitter avatar for @JMchangama
Jacob Mchangama @JMchangama
1/19🧵How should open democracies counter movements - foreign + domestic - who use freedom as a means to abolish democracy? Often the answer of democratic leaders is to call for restrictions on speech and information. Here is why this approach is a cure worse than the disease:
Image
9:25 AM ∙ Oct 12, 2022
32Likes15Retweets
Twitter avatar for @JMchangama
Jacob Mchangama @JMchangama
2/ In a separate thread I discussed the "Weimar Fallacy" and how attempts to censor Nazis was both ineffective and counterproductive ultimately providing the legal tools to abolish democracy and civil liberties
Twitter avatar for @JMchangama
Jacob Mchangama @JMchangama
1/ America struggles with how to counter violent extremism in a deeply polarized country with a fractured information environment where conspiracy theories and disinformation has taken hold. Some have compared this state of affairs to Weimar Germany.
9:25 AM ∙ Oct 12, 2022
Twitter avatar for @JMchangama
Jacob Mchangama @JMchangama
3/ But post-WWII efforts to counter fascism through repression also empowered totalitarianism. This time the Soviet Union. In 1947 the Allied powers concluded peace treaties w Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, obliging these states to prohibit anti-democratic movements + propaganda
Image
9:25 AM ∙ Oct 12, 2022
Twitter avatar for @JMchangama
Jacob Mchangama @JMchangama
17/ To um up: There are compelling historical reasons to be sceptical of the idea that restricting hate speech and disinformation is effective against enemies of democracy. And even stronger historical reasons to fear the abuse and unintended consequences of such restrictions
9:26 AM ∙ Oct 12, 2022
Twitter avatar for @JMchangama
Jacob Mchangama @JMchangama
18/ Of course, free speech comes with costs and harms and will not safeguard democracy or defeat hatred and propaganda on its own. But in the fight to preserve democracy and freedom, safeguarding free speech from even well intended restrictions is part of the solution.
9:26 AM ∙ Oct 12, 2022

Shadi Hamid and Zaid Jilani with a short back and forth on democracy, liberalism and Latin America:

Twitter avatar for @shadihamid
Shadi Hamid @shadihamid
To what extent can democracy and liberalism be de-coupled?
Image
6:13 PM ∙ Oct 11, 2022
Twitter avatar for @ZaidJilani
Zaid Jilani @ZaidJilani
@shadihamid Latin America answers that
6:13 PM ∙ Oct 11, 2022
Twitter avatar for @ZaidJilani
Zaid Jilani @ZaidJilani
@shadihamid I think you'd find many illiberal democracies there
6:20 PM ∙ Oct 11, 2022
Twitter avatar for @shadihamid
Shadi Hamid @shadihamid
@ZaidJilani Yep, but they're illiberal in a different way, i.e. politically illiberal rather than culturally or religiously illiberal. The former is worse. Chavez was the obvious case, but I don't think Venezuela qualifies as a democracy anymore even by my relatively minimal standards.
6:23 PM ∙ Oct 11, 2022

Finally, Jonah Goldberg on Alex Jones apologists:

Twitter avatar for @JonahDispatch
Jonah Goldberg @JonahDispatch
If you’re defending Alex Jones, you’re telling on yourself.
1:07 AM ∙ Oct 13, 2022
678Likes67Retweets
Share this post

E-Pluribus | October 13, 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