RUTHFULLY YOURS

Simply inaccurate’ to say he approves of political violence https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/36136/

Mark Bray says political violence is justified against certain groups.

The Dartmouth University history lecturer is not saying this privately or describing the historical use of political violence: He’s advocating it in media interviews while promoting his admittedly sympathetic new book about the left-wing terrorist movement Antifa.

But when his university president publicly criticized Bray’s expressed views, saying “the endorsement of violence in any form is contrary to Dartmouth values,” Bray’s faculty peers rushed to his defense.

More than 100 faculty have signed a statement that praises Bray as “the national expert” on fascism and anti-fascism in the 21st century, according to a Monday report in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which says faculty names were not on the letter it was shown.

The statement says, bafflingly, Bray’s accurately reported words in media appearances are “simply inaccurate.”

It also raises a straw man, that Dartmouth has threatened Bray’s job by criticizing his accurately reported views: “There is nothing that Professor Bray has said that is in violation of Dartmouth’s stated free speech and academic freedom policies.”

The statement asks the university to retract President Philip Hanlon’s critical statement, apologize to Bray “for exposing him to entirely predictable possibility of physical harm,” and study how Dartmouth’s peer institutions “react when such a situation arises again—as it most certainly will.”

Here’s the somewhat typo-ridden transcript from the Aug. 20 broadcast of Meet the Press, where moderator Chuck Todd asks Bray why he’s part of “a very small minority here who is defending the idea of violence considering that somebody died in [the ‘Unite the Right’ rally and counterprotest in] Charlottesville.”

Bray replies:

I think that a lot of people recognize that, when pushed, self-defense is a legitimate response to white supremacy and neo-Nazi violence. And you know we’ve tried ignoring neo-Nazi’s in the past. We’ve seen how that turned out in 20’s and 30’s and the lesson of history is you need to take it with the utmost seriousness before it’s too late. … And the way to stop that is what people did in Boston [by physically attacking a “free speech rally”], what people did in Charlottesville. Pull the emergency break and say you can’t make this normal.

Reminded by Todd that the civil-rights movement had its own supporters of political violence who were overruled by its leaders, Bray again euphemizes political violence against words as self-defense:

Well, there’s a big difference between confronting fascism and confronting other forms of violence. So we can see that during the 30’s and 40’s, there was no public opinion to being leveraged by non-violent resistance. If you get fascist to be powerful enough in government, they’re simply not gonna listen to the kind of public opinion that non-violence can generate. … A lot of people are under attack and sometimes they need to be able to defend themselves. It’s not, you know, it’s a privileged position to be able to say that you never have to defend yourself from these kinds of monsters.

Not to be left out of the social justice chorus in the post-Charlottesville age, a coalition of 17 Princeton University student organizations have penned an op-ed blaming President Trump for the rise of the alt-right and racist incidents since the 2016 election, as well as a resurgence of white supremacy.

The groups — which include the Princeton Students for Reproductive Justice, Muslim Advocates for Social Justice and Individual Dignity, and the Princeton Hidden Minority Council — also chide their university for its complicity in the “oppression” of marginalized communities, declaring it “is not good enough to disapprove of or condemn racism, white supremacy,” etc.

The school must act, you see … and in the manner these groups demand.

Here are some of the ways in which “white- and male-serving” Princeton is “upholding structural oppression” against its students, according to their Daily Princetonian op-ed :

–Refusal to remove racist memorialization on campus (e.g. Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Woodrow Wilson Residential College, Stanhope Hall)

–Refusal to divest from private prisons and detention centers

–Failure to declare itself a sanctuary campus for undocumented students

–Lack of accommodations for non-binary students (e.g. lack of accessible gender-inclusive restrooms across campus, denial of resources, and continued harassment of queer, trans and non-binary students of color from low-income backgrounds on campus)

–Failure to provide adequate food options for low-income students

–Failure to provide students with a more diverse academic curriculum that addresses historically marginalized groups, especially within the field of ethnic studies (e.g. Latinx Studies, Native/Indigenous Studies, Asian American Studies, and Pacific Islander American Studies)

–Perpetuation of double standards regarding the establishment of affinity living spaces. While the University allows for students to live together based on shared artistic (e.g. Edwards Collective ) or sustainability (e.g. Pink House) interests, it has declined to allow living spaces based on shared race or ethnicity.

In tried and true politically correct contradictory fashion, the coalition further argues that the “labor of organizing has not always been equally assumed by groups of differing privilege.”

But … how do groups of differing privilege “equally” assume responsibility? It’s obvious enough from this treatise that straight white males would assume the most responsibility; however, as I’ve previously joked regarding the creation of, a “PC hierarchy handbook” what would be the guidelines after this group?

More from the piece:

We all have an obligation to oppose those who seek to foster hatred and discord by adopting these beliefs and actions.

Over the past seven months, the current presidential administration has actively opposed carrying out this obligation. White supremacy and the oppression of marginalized peoples has always had a political platform in the United States. The Trump administration has only exacerbated the level of violence against vulnerable individuals by emboldening racists to exercise their hatred explicitly, as evident from the acts of violence against people from historically marginalized communities directly following the election to the racist marches in the present day. Donald Trump is complicit in the rise of the alt-right and the racism and white supremacy that accompanies it.

[…] we need not hold our breath for a president who will not condemn white supremacist terrorism. Instead, we must turn to one another in solidarity and commit to coalition-building and accomplice-ship between communities of differing privileges. Recognizing the value of diversity and acceptance is a start, but we can and must do more than loftily promising to stand together.

We must be in solidarity with the counter-protesters who stood inches from torch-bearing fascists at the University of Virginia. Solidarity with Takiyah Thompson, who was arrested for toppling a Confederate statue in Durham, N.C. Solidarity with all those in this country who live under and struggle against systems of oppression. …

Lastly, courtesy of this newfound alliance, here’s a new term for your “oppression” vocabulary: “transmisogynoir,” the oppression of trans women and trans feminine people of color.

A new school year is upon us, and the assault on free speech continues as Yale Law School students reject their new dean’s call for civil discourse. George Washington proclaimed in 1783 that if “the freedom of Speech may be taken away,” then, “dumb & silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.” If campuses are incubating our next generation of leaders, I hope America likes lamb chops.

While teaching at Yale, I have often witnessed students demonizing each other over their disagreements. Concerned students informed me of a school-wide e-mail argument in which one student was branded racist because of his disagreement with another student’s criticism of course offerings. The accused pointed out that he obviously could not see his interlocutor’s race over e-mail, nor guess it from her name; he simply disagreed with her idea. The ad hominem attacks only intensified from there.

Another time, a student group invited a controversial speaker to campus. Rather than speak up to expose the flaws in the speaker’s ideas, offended students announced that anyone in that group who did not publicly denounce the speaker and call for a disinvitation would be labeled sexist and ostracized. Intimidated students quietly dropped out of the group.

These private interactions are a symptom of what ails the public sphere.

Since its birth, the United States has grappled with people’s natural tendency to quash dissenting views. The founding generation rejected the British Crown’s practice of publishing its own newspaper in favor of both an independent free press and ardent support for free expression. But by 1798, a mere ten years after the Constitution’s adoption, the federal government had enacted the Sedition Act, making it illegal to publish “any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against Congress or the president. The act was a clear violation of Americans’ First Amendment rights. The Federalist party, under President John Adams, used its control of the government to silence its critics and attack the Democratic-Republican minority.

With the nascent Supreme Court neither willing nor ready to check the other branches, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison appealed to the people to defend Americans’ rights “to think freely and to speak and write what they think.” They used the very rights under attack — the freedoms of speech and the press — to educate the populace, galvanize public support across the states, and win back control of the government. In other words, they successfully countered a bad law with rational arguments.

Today many will instinctively reject the Founders’ principles because many of them were white slaveholders. But that is part of the point: Automatically dismissing ideas based on the identity of the messenger can leave us all worse off. After all, these deeply flawed individuals nevertheless managed to enshrine in the country they founded — our country —many wonderful principles, from freedom of religion to checks and balances to free expression itself.

That latter principle is once again under siege today, and we could do worse than to dust off some of the grassroots tactics of Jefferson and Madison in its defense. We must take to the press, utilize social media, contact school administrators and professors, support leaders who practice and foster civil discourse, and speak to our friends and neighbors to help educate our communities on what freedom of speech really means.

At last there’s an encouraging message of intellectual independence—and from the Ivy League of all places. Just in time for school, a hardy band of professors has joined together to commit a flagrant micro-aggression. Scholars from various academic disciplines have signed a declaration urging college students to declare their independence. Specifically, the participating scholars warn about “the vice of conformism” and offer to each student headed off to college advice that is both simple and clear: “Think for yourself.”

Some if not all of the 15 signatories are probably a little bit amazed that their message even needs to be said at institutions supposedly dedicated to learning. But the decline of campus culture means that independent thought can now require of students tremendous effort and even a kind of courage. The professors write:

At many colleges and universities what John Stuart Mill called “the tyranny of public opinion” does more than merely discourage students from dissenting from prevailing views on moral, political, and other types of questions. It leads them to suppose that dominant views are so obviously correct that only a bigot or a crank could question them.

Since no one wants to be, or be thought of as, a bigot or a crank, the easy, lazy way to proceed is simply by falling into line with campus orthodoxies.

Don’t do that. Think for yourself.

Thinking for yourself means questioning dominant ideas even when others insist on their being treated as unquestionable. It means deciding what one believes not by conforming to fashionable opinions, but by taking the trouble to learn and honestly consider the strongest arguments to be advanced on both or all sides of questions—including arguments for positions that others revile and want to stigmatize and against positions others seek to immunize from critical scrutiny.

The letter, signed by professors from Harvard, Princeton and Yale, is published by Princeton’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. This seems altogether fitting, given the Princeton grad’s large role in the drafting and ratification of the U.S. Constitution and its First Amendment protection of free speech. This is also bound to set campus radicals in search of a Madison statue to deplore. But perhaps at least a few of them will stop to ponder the nature of the freedom they enjoy to protest. They might also reflect on this week’s message from professors including Princeton’s Robert George:

The central point of a college education is to seek truth and to learn the skills and acquire the virtues necessary to be a lifelong truth-seeker. Open-mindedness, critical thinking, and debate are essential to discovering the truth. Moreover, they are our best antidotes to bigotry. CONTINUE AT SITE