Yes, "The tragic irony: Kirk was assassinated while attempting to do exactly what universities should encourage." It seems universities are have lost their way and do not foster critical thinking or respectful debate because they seemingly have abandoned: "ideas competing openly, arguments tested publicly, and citizens learning through engagement rather than enforced agreement."
The current educational stance of stifling healthy debate and teaching that words are violence necessitating self-defense, which can lead to assassinations, is deeply troubling.
Thank you for this excellent piece which is shedding light on the decline of universities to prepare the next generation for being a part of a healthy democracy.
Why do you worship this guy? In no way was he an advocate of dispassionate discussion and he held many (my opinion, evidently not yours) despicable views. Not just his hatred for Martin Luther King and blacks in general ("the voting rights act was the worst mistake America ever made.") There is this: "We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately." I do not think that's something Jesus would have said.
Didn’t see any “worship” in the article. Your voting rights act comment is taken completely out of context; read the whole thing. Although my exposure to Mr. Kirk was limited before his death, have since read widely and have seen no evidence of dislike of the black race, much less “hatred.” As for gender-affirming care, even the primary researcher who set out to prove it was beneficial, failed. She failed to release the data, and I don’t recall how it finally came to light. Anyone? Bottom line, the doctors (many who freely discussed the income stream) “experimented” on confused youth, without providing true informed consent, and knowing full well that the harms outweigh the benefits. I don’t take offense at Mr. Kirk’s comment.
I appreciate how you're directly pointing to one of the fundamental questions that underlie the need for Free Speech and its robust protections - "How can we try to best live together, even as we must accept that we will have many competing visions on what 'best living together' should look like?"
So, rather than being forced to accept the premise of "all needing to agree" that (mis)informs so many fundamentalist framings, both Left and Right, we must continue to advocate some basic acceptance that uniformity of belief is impossible, and then look beyond it to continuously explore compelling visions of greater possibilities. In other words, "towards a more perfect Union."
Well said, thank you! We've done relatively well with religious pluralism in this country, but it seems that the line between religious versus political belief has been blurred, which leads too many to condemn political opponents as evil heretics. We need to restore the Constitutional line between freedom of private moral conscience (you do you) and government edict before we turn back into the Puritan colonies our founders explicitly rejected.
I think the diagnosis and therapy are fairly well known to any fair-minded individual. The key is the courage to stand up to the radicals - and they come very largely from the woke neomarxists.
I don't think the January 6 rioters were woke neomarxists. And your beloved Donald Trump's attacks on universities does not exactly encourage free exchange of ideas. But is does destroy decades of critical medical research. Do you really think Trump encourages open discussion?
Thanks for this thoughtful article. The underlying issue resulting in lack of free speech and diversity of thought at universities is that many are infected with political sectarianism—hatred of anyone not in one’s political tribe. Censoring free expression is the symptom. The disease is political sectarianism. Until we recognize and treat the actual disease, we won’t make much headway tackling one of its symptoms. Political sectarianism leads to cognitive distortions, prejudice and discrimination. Extreme tribalism leads to an environment where there is aversion, othering and moralization; those who don’t vote the way sectarians wish are considered enemies and less than human. Those infected with this mindset feel that censoring, shunning, canceling, ostracizing, dehumanizing, doxxing, swatting and even physical violence is morally justified. This trend is especially strong among young people and infects nearly half of people on the right and the left. While most Americans practice pluralism regarding religion, many have no tolerance for different political perspectives. Political sectarianism is a danger to the social cohesion needed for a functioning constitutional republic. https://bigthink.com/the-present/republicans-and-democrats-hate-other-side-more-than-love-own-party/
The Free Speech movement of which you feature a photograph was the beginning of no speech for anything and anyone other than leftist orthodoxy. Re-education camps are not "free speech."
The Free Speech movement of which they feature a photograph was the end of no speech for anything and anyone other than right-wing orthodoxy.
I remember the 1960s. Perhaps you do not. Until then, the right wing held complete control over our institutions and media. In fact, those who had the audacity to simply register Black Americans to vote were hunted down and murdered by right-wingers.
Now that the pendulum has swung the other way, all the right-wingers are throwing hissy fits. But they refuse to admit that the right wing started the silencing of dissent in the first place.
It wasn't "right wing." It was normal. I'm not talking about the civil rights movement. I'm talking about the canon, censorship, and the radicalization of the professoriate.
It's so exasperating isn't it? But it's fun to anonymously attack people you don't know. You have twice exploited the example of the murder of activists helping blacks to register to vote. You have twice said that I think that's "normal," which is a lie. You're also trying to limit the conversation to racism to shut down other points of view. I'm talking about Marxism. "Decolonizing." Two thirds of Harvard students say they don't feel free to express their opinion on controversial issues. And until very recently applicants had to sign a political oath before admission or being hired. I'm talking about erasing the distinction between men and women. Attacking science and math, and a range of other things as "white supremacy." I'm talking about indoctrinating not teaching students. I'm talking about misrepresenting a whole lot of things including the fact that colleges and many still do taught both sides of many issues. I'm talking about the idiocy of a nihilistic ideology and its online trolls.
Universities would do well to sponsor such debates, and ruthlessly protect them from disruption by radicals. Anything less is worthless. Lead by example.
The question is why most campuses have drifted to the extreme left.
When campus are dominated by the extreme, they are going to perceive people like Kirk, Shapiro, etc in the same light as they perceive fHitler.
What about the extreme left - what I would characterize as absolute view of individual rights over community rights - is so enticing?
Could theorize many things:
1. Loss of growing up with responsibility. How many college students have worked at MCDonalds or in a restaurant washing dishes or on a farm doing basic work? Very few!
2. Loss of the moral authority that was religion. Religion focused on the community not the individual.
3. Bad parenting for privileged students - the ones who attend the elite universities that are far left.
The founders were all Protestant Christian St8 Bigoted European Men. They had a common base morality to agree on.
That doesn’t exist. It’s not relevant to compare to today’s environment.
The "Free Speech!" martyrdom of comedian Jimmy Kimmel by the left is utterly hypocritical, tasteless and infuriating as it distracts from the fact that conservative Charlie Kirk literally just gave his life for freedom of speech. I loathe their hypocrisy, but it's pragmatic to seize this moment to force the issue. Much as I would love to see mea culpas for all the years of cancellations by the left, the urgent necessity now is to peddle universities back from their militant social justice dogmatism, by any means necessary. (Irony intended.)
Actually, Weimar's failure did not represent a decline of Democratic values. Germany had no tradition of democracy. It was really doomed from the get-go. The amazing thing is that it succeeded as well as it did, largely thanks to the Socialists (not, emphatically, the Communists.
Yes, "The tragic irony: Kirk was assassinated while attempting to do exactly what universities should encourage." It seems universities are have lost their way and do not foster critical thinking or respectful debate because they seemingly have abandoned: "ideas competing openly, arguments tested publicly, and citizens learning through engagement rather than enforced agreement."
The current educational stance of stifling healthy debate and teaching that words are violence necessitating self-defense, which can lead to assassinations, is deeply troubling.
Thank you for this excellent piece which is shedding light on the decline of universities to prepare the next generation for being a part of a healthy democracy.
Why do you worship this guy? In no way was he an advocate of dispassionate discussion and he held many (my opinion, evidently not yours) despicable views. Not just his hatred for Martin Luther King and blacks in general ("the voting rights act was the worst mistake America ever made.") There is this: "We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately." I do not think that's something Jesus would have said.
Which sentence indicates worship for a man?
Didn’t see any “worship” in the article. Your voting rights act comment is taken completely out of context; read the whole thing. Although my exposure to Mr. Kirk was limited before his death, have since read widely and have seen no evidence of dislike of the black race, much less “hatred.” As for gender-affirming care, even the primary researcher who set out to prove it was beneficial, failed. She failed to release the data, and I don’t recall how it finally came to light. Anyone? Bottom line, the doctors (many who freely discussed the income stream) “experimented” on confused youth, without providing true informed consent, and knowing full well that the harms outweigh the benefits. I don’t take offense at Mr. Kirk’s comment.
I appreciate how you're directly pointing to one of the fundamental questions that underlie the need for Free Speech and its robust protections - "How can we try to best live together, even as we must accept that we will have many competing visions on what 'best living together' should look like?"
So, rather than being forced to accept the premise of "all needing to agree" that (mis)informs so many fundamentalist framings, both Left and Right, we must continue to advocate some basic acceptance that uniformity of belief is impossible, and then look beyond it to continuously explore compelling visions of greater possibilities. In other words, "towards a more perfect Union."
Well said, thank you! We've done relatively well with religious pluralism in this country, but it seems that the line between religious versus political belief has been blurred, which leads too many to condemn political opponents as evil heretics. We need to restore the Constitutional line between freedom of private moral conscience (you do you) and government edict before we turn back into the Puritan colonies our founders explicitly rejected.
I think the diagnosis and therapy are fairly well known to any fair-minded individual. The key is the courage to stand up to the radicals - and they come very largely from the woke neomarxists.
I don't think the January 6 rioters were woke neomarxists. And your beloved Donald Trump's attacks on universities does not exactly encourage free exchange of ideas. But is does destroy decades of critical medical research. Do you really think Trump encourages open discussion?
The Jan 6 that you lefties obsess over was an unruly mob and peanuts compared to your antifa assassins.
And the woke cancellings and censorings has been and is way broader and deeper than anything from the right. Open your eyes.
"Antifa Assassins." Name one.
Jan. 6 was a violent insurrection organized by Trump and his cronies. No, it was not organized by the FBI. Wake up.
Charlie Kirk's assassin, for one.
You live in the past with your obsessions. Get real.
I have not heard that he was a member of Antifa, or that Antifa has taken credit for the murder.
Then do some more reading about the messages he carved on his bullets, including "Ciao, Bella".
Thanks for this thoughtful article. The underlying issue resulting in lack of free speech and diversity of thought at universities is that many are infected with political sectarianism—hatred of anyone not in one’s political tribe. Censoring free expression is the symptom. The disease is political sectarianism. Until we recognize and treat the actual disease, we won’t make much headway tackling one of its symptoms. Political sectarianism leads to cognitive distortions, prejudice and discrimination. Extreme tribalism leads to an environment where there is aversion, othering and moralization; those who don’t vote the way sectarians wish are considered enemies and less than human. Those infected with this mindset feel that censoring, shunning, canceling, ostracizing, dehumanizing, doxxing, swatting and even physical violence is morally justified. This trend is especially strong among young people and infects nearly half of people on the right and the left. While most Americans practice pluralism regarding religion, many have no tolerance for different political perspectives. Political sectarianism is a danger to the social cohesion needed for a functioning constitutional republic. https://bigthink.com/the-present/republicans-and-democrats-hate-other-side-more-than-love-own-party/
The Free Speech movement of which you feature a photograph was the beginning of no speech for anything and anyone other than leftist orthodoxy. Re-education camps are not "free speech."
The Free Speech movement of which they feature a photograph was the end of no speech for anything and anyone other than right-wing orthodoxy.
I remember the 1960s. Perhaps you do not. Until then, the right wing held complete control over our institutions and media. In fact, those who had the audacity to simply register Black Americans to vote were hunted down and murdered by right-wingers.
Now that the pendulum has swung the other way, all the right-wingers are throwing hissy fits. But they refuse to admit that the right wing started the silencing of dissent in the first place.
It wasn't "right wing." It was normal. I'm not talking about the civil rights movement. I'm talking about the canon, censorship, and the radicalization of the professoriate.
You think murdering people for registering Americans to vote is "normal"???
It was right wing. It still is right wing.
You just think it's normal because you're right-wing.
Talk about having zero self-awareness.
🤦♀️
It's so exasperating isn't it? But it's fun to anonymously attack people you don't know. You have twice exploited the example of the murder of activists helping blacks to register to vote. You have twice said that I think that's "normal," which is a lie. You're also trying to limit the conversation to racism to shut down other points of view. I'm talking about Marxism. "Decolonizing." Two thirds of Harvard students say they don't feel free to express their opinion on controversial issues. And until very recently applicants had to sign a political oath before admission or being hired. I'm talking about erasing the distinction between men and women. Attacking science and math, and a range of other things as "white supremacy." I'm talking about indoctrinating not teaching students. I'm talking about misrepresenting a whole lot of things including the fact that colleges and many still do taught both sides of many issues. I'm talking about the idiocy of a nihilistic ideology and its online trolls.
I'm disappointed in universities that didn't make a statement to staff and students condemning this.
Universities would do well to sponsor such debates, and ruthlessly protect them from disruption by radicals. Anything less is worthless. Lead by example.
This is also an issue at the High School level when teachers are reported by students for sharing their thoughts and ideas.
The question is why most campuses have drifted to the extreme left.
When campus are dominated by the extreme, they are going to perceive people like Kirk, Shapiro, etc in the same light as they perceive fHitler.
What about the extreme left - what I would characterize as absolute view of individual rights over community rights - is so enticing?
Could theorize many things:
1. Loss of growing up with responsibility. How many college students have worked at MCDonalds or in a restaurant washing dishes or on a farm doing basic work? Very few!
2. Loss of the moral authority that was religion. Religion focused on the community not the individual.
3. Bad parenting for privileged students - the ones who attend the elite universities that are far left.
The founders were all Protestant Christian St8 Bigoted European Men. They had a common base morality to agree on.
That doesn’t exist. It’s not relevant to compare to today’s environment.
The "Free Speech!" martyrdom of comedian Jimmy Kimmel by the left is utterly hypocritical, tasteless and infuriating as it distracts from the fact that conservative Charlie Kirk literally just gave his life for freedom of speech. I loathe their hypocrisy, but it's pragmatic to seize this moment to force the issue. Much as I would love to see mea culpas for all the years of cancellations by the left, the urgent necessity now is to peddle universities back from their militant social justice dogmatism, by any means necessary. (Irony intended.)
About the democrats and their crimes against all
https://sergemil.substack.com/p/democrats-and-freedom-truth-or-illusion
About the democrats and their crimes
https://open.substack.com/pub/sergemil/p/democrats-and-freedom-truth-or-illusion
Actually, Weimar's failure did not represent a decline of Democratic values. Germany had no tradition of democracy. It was really doomed from the get-go. The amazing thing is that it succeeded as well as it did, largely thanks to the Socialists (not, emphatically, the Communists.