Sunday, March 12, 2017

The Dangerous Safety of College

The moral of the recent melee at Middlebury College, where students shouted down and chased away a controversial social scientist, isn’t just about free speech, though that’s the rubric under which the ugly incident has been tucked. It’s about emotional coddling. It’s about intellectual impoverishment.

Somewhere along the way, those young men and women — our future leaders, perhaps — got the idea that they should be able to purge their world of perspectives offensive to them. They came to believe that it’s morally dignified and politically constructive to scream rather than to reason, to hurl slurs in place of arguments.

They have been done a terrible disservice. All of us have, and we need to reacquaint ourselves with what education really means and what colleges do and don’t owe their charges.

Physical safety? Absolutely. A smooth, validating passage across the ocean of ideas? No. If anything, colleges owe students turbulence, because it’s from a contest of perspectives and an assault on presumptions that truth emerges — and, with it, true confidence.

What happened at Middlebury was this: A group of conservative students invited Charles Murray to speak, and administrators rightly consented to it. Although his latest writings about class divisions in America have been perceptive, even prescient, his 1994 book “The Bell Curve” trafficked in race-based theories of intelligence and was broadly (and, in my opinion, correctly) denounced. The Southern Poverty Law Center labeled him a white nationalist.

He arrived on campus wearing that tag, to encounter hundreds of protesters intent on registering their disgust. Many jammed the auditorium where he was supposed to be interviewed — by, mind you, a liberal professor — and stood with their backs to him. That much was fine, even commendable, but the protest didn’t stop there.

Chanting that Murray was “racist, sexist, anti-gay,” the students wouldn’t let him talk. And when he and the professor moved their planned interchange to a private room where it could be recorded on camera, protesters disrupted that, too, by pulling fire alarms and banging on windows. A subsequent confrontation between some of them and Murray grew physical enough that the professor with him sought medical treatment for a wrenched neck.

Middlebury isn’t every school, and only a small fraction of Middlebury students were involved. But we’d be foolish not to treat this as a wake-up call, because it’s of a piece with some of the extraordinary demands that students at other campuses have made, and it’s the fruit of a dangerous ideological conformity in too much of higher education.

It put me in mind of important remarks that the commentator Van Jones, a prominent Democrat, made just six days beforehand at the University of Chicago, where he upbraided students for insisting on being swaddled in Bubble Wrap.

“I don’t want you to be safe, ideologically,” he told them. “I don’t want you to be safe, emotionally. I want you to be strong. That’s different. I’m not going to pave the jungle for you. Put on some boots, and learn how to deal with adversity.”

“You are creating a kind of liberalism that the minute it crosses the street into the real world is not just useless, but obnoxious and dangerous,” he added. “I want you to be offended every single day on this campus. I want you to be deeply aggrieved and offended and upset, and then to learn how to speak back. Because that is what we need from you.”[...]

Protests aren’t the problem, not in and of themselves. They’re vital, and so is work to end racism, sexism, homophobia and other bigotry. But much of the policing of imperfect language, silencing of dissent and shaming of dissenters runs counter to that goal, alienating the very onlookers who need illumination.

It’s an approach less practical than passionate, less strategic than cathartic, and partly for that reason, both McWhorter and the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt have likened it to a religion.

“When something becomes a religion, we don’t choose the actions that are most likely to solve the problem,” said Haidt, the author of the 2012 best seller “The Righteous Mind” and a professor at New York University. “We do the things that are the most ritually satisfying.”

He added that what he saw in footage of the confrontation at Middlebury “was a modern-day auto-da-fé: the celebration of a religious rite by burning the blasphemer.”

The protesters didn’t use Murray’s presence as an occasion to hone the most eloquent, irrefutable retort to him. They swarmed and swore.

McWhorter recalled that back when “The Bell Curve” was published, there was disagreement about whether journalists should give it currency by paying it heed. But he said that it was because they engaged the material in detail, rather than just branding it sacrilegious, that he learned enough to conclude on his own that its assertions were wrong — and why.

Both he and Haidt belong to Heterodox Academy, a group of hundreds of professors who, in joining, have pledged to support a diversity of viewpoints at colleges and universities. It was founded in 2015. It’s distressing that there was — and is — even a need for it.

But according to an essay in Bloomberg View last week by Stephen Carter, a professor of law at Yale, the impulse to squelch upsetting words with “odious behavior” is so common “that it’s tempting to greet it with a shrug.”

“The downshouters will go on behaving deplorably,” Carter wrote, “and reminding the rest of us that the true harbinger of an authoritarian future lives not in the White House but in the groves of academe.”[...]


  1. I don't understand. Isn't this article from the ultra-liberal overly-politically-correct New York Times? How can it possibly be that they would publish such an article?
    (Tongue-in-cheek, in case you missed it).

  2. A nice article. Here is a related idea.

  3. This NY Times journalist rightfully complains about the dangerous imbalance that exists at Middlebury and other liberal colleges between ideological safety and ideological strength. The journalist believes that “Colleges owe students turbulence, because it’s from a contest of perspectives and an assault on presumptions that truth emerges — and, with it, true confidence.”

    Yeshivas too, agreeably not to the same degree as liberal colleges, owe this to their students, an atmosphere where they can (paraphrasing McWhorter) engage in controversial material in detail, rather than just branding it sacrilegious, so that they will learn enough to conclude on their own which assertions are wrong — and why. Yeshivas, unfortunately, fail to adequately fulfill this obligation.

    Fortunately, we have the internet and forums like Daas Torah, where we can fearlessly and fully debate the important issues of the day.

  4. it is important to understand the obsession with homogeneity of thought in the frum world.

    When I wrote the sefer Daas Torah I was told by many rabbonim - that I would never get away with it and would be put in cherem - because it showed the range of views instead of THE VIEW.
    It was only after I Rav Moshe Shapiro and Rav Eliashiv told me that there was no problem that I went ahead with the project.

    I was told the same thing when I published my books on child abuse - that went against the perceived normative view - that I would be put in cherem. I published because of the encouragement of Rav Sternbuch.

    The Maharal in Be'er HaGolah states that silencing questions is a sign of weakness of faith and that it is necessary to know how to answer them

  5. There is a fine line between not allowing racist and sexist views a platform, and the stifling of unpopular opinions. Unfortunately too often the fine line is crossed, sometimes regrettably using violence. However we must not assume this is purely a leftist phenomenon, as we know "anti-establishment" views are suppressed in a range of communities. The existence of liberal colleges wishing to maintain their liberal identity is not a problem, as neither is a Chareidi Yeshiva wishing to maintain its Chareidi identity. But when the alternative positions are stifled and not permitted to be heard society itself must admit it has a problem.

  6. You might have been able to get away with it (not get banned, etc), but no one advocating thus will be allowed in yeshiva (or other institution) today.

    Even you got banned / invitation retracted. How about someone else?

  7. The article wimped out. What the author should have called for is a better campus security apparatus. But he stopped short of calling for the arrest of those who clearly were arrest-able for their actions.

    In other words, the author says, "Don't coddle", and then he goes and "coddles"!

  8. And these same "downshouters" and college students seeking safe spaces are the ones triggered by Donald Trump and insisting that Hillary was entitled to become president and we all will die because Russian Don has the nuclear codes etc...
    You are just too blind to see you have been hoodwinked by their narrative. And you add fuel to their wolf-crying

  9. I wonder, did those experiences teach you to no longer seek external encouragement to do what you know is right? Or do you still seek that rabbinical validation and stamp of approval before crossing that street? Has your view evolved precisely because of the way you were mistreated and warned and you came to see it as a mirage projected by damaged individuals? Or is it only because Rabbi ___ said in this instance you can go ahead that you believe you were justified to go ahead but otherwise those naysayers were right? It would be interesting to me to know because after reading you for a very long time I still am not sure how you view it. And you seem to still be a "party man" through it all...


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.