RUTHFULLY YOURS

There is a lot of abstract talk these days on American college campuses about free speech and the values of free inquiry, with lip service paid to expansive notions of free expression and the marketplace of ideas. What I’ve learned through my recent experience of writing a controversial op-ed is that most of this talk is not worth much. It is only when people are confronted with speech they don’t like that we see whether these abstractions are real to them.

The op-ed, which I co-authored with Larry Alexander of the University of San Diego Law School, appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Aug. 9 under the headline, “Paying the Price for the Breakdown of the Country’s Bourgeois Culture.” It began by listing some of the ills afflicting American society:

Too few Americans are qualified for the jobs available. Male working-age labor-force participation is at Depression-era lows. Opioid abuse is widespread. Homicidal violence plagues inner cities. Almost half of all children are born out of wedlock, and even more are raised by single mothers. Many college students lack basic skills, and high school students rank below those from two dozen other countries.

We then discussed the “cultural script”—a list of behavioral norms—that was almost universally endorsed between the end of World War II and the mid-1960s:

Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.

These norms defined a concept of adult responsibility that was, we wrote, “a major contributor to the productivity, educational gains and social coherence of that period.” The fact that the “bourgeois culture” these norms embodied has broken down since the 1960s, we argued, largely explains today’s social pathologies—and re-embracing that culture would go a long way toward addressing those pathologies.

In what became the most controversial passage, we pointed out that some cultures are less suited to preparing people to be productive citizens in a modern technological society, and we gave examples:

The culture of the Plains Indians was designed for nomadic hunters, but is not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment. Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-‘acting white’ rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants.

www.nas.org

https://www.nas.org/resources/charting_academic_freedom
On Thursday, February 1, the National Association of Scholars launched our newest report, Charting Academic Freedom: 103 Years of Debate. Academic freedom is a hot topic of discussion on nearly every American college campus, but until now, no single source documents and analyzes the most prominent, published statements on academic freedom to put all the details in perspective.

In addition to serving as a digest of the principles that underlie intellectual freedom, Charting Academic Freedom also allows us to see and understand the bigger picture so that we take appropriate action. For instance, our report makes it clear that the current threat to academic freedom no longer comes from sources outside the university. The new threats to academic freedom come from the faculty and their indoctrinated students, and that means that to protect and advance academic freedom, these statements must be updated to reflect the new reality.

Charting Academic Freedom is available as a free download from the NAS website. It is intended as a resource for anyone who would like to better understand the debate about academic freedom and what it means for our society; it is for faculty, students, journalists, administrators, parents, concerned citizens, and more. Please share the report with anyone you think would benefit from it.

Room, board, tuition and other fees cost $65,495.00 at Cornell. The average salary for professors there is $285,000. rsk

Cornell University’s Prof. Eric Cheyfitz isn’t a fan of the American Dream, it seems. The problem isn’t that he thinks it’s bad — it seems he believes the American Dream isn’t reality.

The Ernest I. White Professor of American Studies and Humane Letters spoke at an event hosted by the Institute for Comparative Modernities on Tuesday. During the talk, he referred to his latest book, The Disinformation Age: The Collapse of Liberal Democracy in the United States. In it, he takes aim at the White House.

Yet, oddly enough, it’s not the Trump administration he focused on:

Obama’s speeches, he said, are classic examples of what Cheyfitz defines as “disinformation,” or the “rupture of political rhetoric from political reality with fatal results.”

In other words, Trump and our current political situation are not, contrary to what many people may think, the causes of disinformation.

“Trump is not the problem — he is the latest symptom of the problem,” Cheyfitz explained. Rather, the country’s major issue is the overlapping, “imbricated pair of income inequality and climate change.”

Cheyfitz also said:

If I were to sum up the book in one sentence, I would say it is a historical explanation about how and why the United States is still trying to live a narrative, American exceptionalism, that fails to rationalize the state any longer.

“This story has always confused capitalism with democracy when in fact the two systems are fundamentally at odds.”

This nonsense isn’t surprising coming from an academic. CONTINUE AT SITE

In a 1989 article in The New Republic, Andrew Sullivan made what he called “a (conservative) case for gay marriage.” Today same-sex marriage is legal everywhere in America, supported by majorities of voters and accepted as a part of American life.

Now Sullivan has cast his gaze on what he regards as a disturbing aspect of American life — the extension of speech suppression and “identity politics” from colleges and universities into the larger society. The hothouse plants of campus mores have become invasive species undermining and crowding out the beneficent flora of the larger free democratic society.

Sullivan can be seen as a kind of undercover spy on campuses, to which he is invited often to speak — because of his bona fides as a cultural reformer — by those probably ignorant of the parenthetical “conservative” in his 1989 article. As Jonathan Rauch did in his 2004 book, “Gay Marriage,” Sullivan argued that same-sex marriage, by including those previously excluded, would strengthen rather than undermine family values and bourgeois domesticity. That now seems to be happening.

The spread of campus values to the larger society would — and is intended to — have the opposite effect.

Take the proliferation of campus speech codes. Americans of a certain age have trouble believing that colleges and universities have rules banning supposedly hurtful speech. They can remember when campuses were the part of America most open to dissent. Now students are disciplined for handing out copies of the U.S. Constitution outside a tiny isolated “free speech zone.”

I belong to Freethinkers of Portland State University, a skeptic student group. On Saturday we’re hosting a panel on diversity featuring James Damore, the Google employee who was fired last July for writing a memo expressing heterodox views about sex disparities in the company’s workforce.

We expected controversy. But we also got danger. The left-wing newspaper Willamette Week published an article with a false and inflammatory headline: “Tech Bro Fired from Google for Saying Women Are Biologically Unfit to Be Engineers Will Speak at PSU Next Month.” The subheadline inaccurately attributed to Mr. Damore the view that “women can’t do math.”

Campus activists called us misogynists, white supremacists, neo-Nazis. A person claiming to work for campus audiovisual services tweeted that he could break into our event through a back entrance and “literally turn the whole building off.” There were threats of violence. A Facebook user—it’s not clear if he’s connected to PSU—suggested he’d throw “active grenades” at Mr. Damore onstage. Campus police took these threats seriously enough that they denied our request for a larger venue, despite overwhelming interest.

Every year, FIRE chooses the 10 worst colleges for free speech — and unfortunately, 2017 left us with plenty of options: Campuses were rocked by violent mob censorship, monitored by bias response teams, plagued by free speech zones, and beset by far too many disinvitation attempts. Although the number of colleges with the most restrictive speech codes has continued to decline, 90 percent of schools still maintain codes that either clearly restrict or could too easily be used to restrict free speech. https://www.thefire.org/the-10-worst-colleges-for-free-speech-2018/

Today, we present our 2018 list of the 10 worst colleges for free speech. As always, our list is presented in no particular order, and it includes both public and private institutions. Public colleges and universities are bound by the First Amendment; the private colleges on this list, though not required by the Constitution to protect student and faculty speech rights, explicitly promise to do so.

A new feature of this year’s list is our Lifetime Censorship Award. This “honor” goes to the one college or university that is so frequently discussed as a contender for our annual “worst colleges for free speech” list that it deserves special recognition. This year, that school is DePaul University.

Are you a student or faculty member whose free speech rights are imperiled on campus? Submit a case to FIRE. Also, check out FIRE’s Guides to Student Rights on Campus to help you fight for free speech, due process, religious liberty, and more.

America’s colleges and universities are experiencing an intellectual crisis. While this is usually cast in terms of “free speech,” that is only a symptom of a deeper sickness. The root issue is whether universities remain true to their foundational mission or whether they are no longer invested in safeguarding free inquiry and welcoming heterodox thought. A new survey of college and university leaders offers a revealing look at how the mandarins of higher education view this crossroads. It offers little grounds for optimism.

Conducted by Gallup, Inside Higher Ed’s 2018 Survey of College and University Academic Officers is a representative nationwide sample of 516 campus leaders across 277 public institutions, 223 private institutions, and 16 for-profit institutions. In plowing through the results, one cannot escape the sense that those at the helm of the nation’s higher-education institutions suffer a case of willful blindness — and that, worse, they seem collectively sure that the buck stops somewhere else.

For instance, only 41 percent of college and university leaders said that free-speech rights are secure on the nation’s campuses, and only 36 percent said free speech is secure in the United States as a whole. Yet when asked about their campuses, fully 80 percent insisted that free-speech rights are secure. In other words, campus leaders see threats to free speech everywhere — except on their own campuses.

On every question about the campus experiences of liberals and conservatives, however, even these campus leaders report that disparities exist. For instance, regarding their own campuses, only 68 percent of campus leaders say that politically conservative students feel generally welcome in classrooms. This bears repeating: Barely two-thirds of campus administrators report that conservatives feel welcome — even as 80 percent insist that free speech is secure. (Meanwhile, just 3 percent say that liberal students feel unwelcome in campus classrooms.)

Herbert London is President of the London Center for Policy Research https://www.londoncenter.org/

For those in the West who have lost their way, no longer sure of whether to believe in their traditions or believe at all, it is useful to recall that liberty is our overarching concern. Liberty, as Edmund Burke counsels, “must inhere in some sensible object; and every nation has formed to itself some favorite point, which… becomes the criterion of happiness.”

Existentialists demur. For them the past is a dream from which they wish to awaken. They refuse to accept the “tyranny of the dead.” However, it is the history of self-government and the unique spirit and energy emerging from the Judeo-Christian tradition that offers a communion of liberty that sets the West apart from others.

Liberty now inheres in — or so we are told — the technique of administration, a liberty created and perfected by a remote class of specialists. This technique applies rationality and technology in order to annul one’s national inheritance. Yet however successful the specialists are in redrafting history as the efflorescence of gender, race, and class, the past and present are being sacrificed for a future of group rights and a diminished sense of liberty.

Tradition affirms the existence of beliefs and practices distilled from human experience shaping the meaning of who we are. To force that experience into an ideological Procrustean Bed is to mislead and misjudge. Only in traditional society can a democratic republic serve the ethical ends of the populace. This is possible because each person is seen as having his own peculiar and essential function. For example, the family is central in the succession of culture since it can encourage a reverence for the past and future. It is, after all, love for the living tradition of one’s culture and the ballast it establishes that lead society’s members to reproduce.

The consumers of higher education have spoken. Workforce outcomes are, far and away, the driving motivation for pursuing post-secondary education across all ages, races, and degree types.

According to a new Strada-Gallup poll, which surveyed 86,000 students at over 3,000 post-secondary institutions, 58 percent say work outcomes — such as finding a good job with good pay and opportunities for career advancement — are their primary motivation for attending. This is true across all higher education pathways and demographic subgroups.

Not surprisingly, even more Americans (72 percent) with postgraduate education experiences identify career goals as their top motivation, as do 60 percent of those on a technical or vocational pathway. The second most common motivation for Americans with postgraduate education eperiences, “general learning and knowledge,” trails at just 23 percent.

Of course, most students who pursue post-secondary education want a good job when they graduate. And, it turns out, this clarity of purpose is important. This new data tells us not only that many students go to school in order to get a job, but that clearly defined career goals play an important role in determining if those students actually complete their chosen course of study.

Students who do not complete their degree are relatively likely to report general aspirations for learning and knowledge as their top motivation (31 percent). Those who did complete their degrees tended to place these goals lower on their list: vocational/technical training (14 percent), post-graduate work/degrees (18 percent), two-year degrees (25 percent), or four-year degrees (20 percent). In an earlier Strada-Gallup report, students who did not complete their education were also the most likely to say they would study a different major if they could do it all over again.