Daily Archives: March 23, 2021

James Dreier, Guest Columnist Published 5:00 a.m. CT March 22, 2021

I read with interest Rep. Holly Brinks opinion piece, "University of Iowa dean abused his office..." (Feb. 27, 2021). Her claims regarding Critical Race Theoryprompted me to do some brief research about the origins and tenants of the theory and more.

I teach a lecture class at the UI called "Jazz Cultures in America and Abroad" and we look at American history and culture in the U.S. and another country from "abroad" (Brazil this year) through the lens of the regional development of jazz. Since we discuss issues of race, gender, history and culture, I tell my students early on:

When writing papers, I ask them to support any observation or opinion with solid, factual sources.

Rep. Brinks intentional use of phrases like "liberal, elite, professors" is rhetoric that exposes an implicit bias. I am a professor (School of Music), but I actually am critical of some in higher education who can be dogmatic and dismissive of alternative points of view. Although I see this attitude more as an exception than a norm, it should be addressed and confronted. One can make a reasonable argument that this dean was heavy-handed and made poor decisions. I believe in free speech and oppose restrictions, even on those who espouse radical and contrary points of view. People can protest, but ideas should not be "canceled" (with rare exceptions). I believe Rep. Brink and I agree on this. But her argument here leaves me with more questions than answers.

More: Fact check: Did University of Iowa dental students 'abandon' their patients to protest earlier this year?

Rep. Brink equates CRT as "Marxist." As a student of history (according to her bio), Im sure she knows that Marx was concerned and focused on the means of production and the power between workers and the ruling class. His mid-19th century writings were a building block in the push towardan inevitable (in his mind) revolution to change this power structure. Very little about racial issues in his writing that I can see. How is CRT Marxist? Can this claim be backed up?

If we are all about free speech and against "cancel culture," then it has to work both ways. Why cloak theories in false narratives and use inflammatory language? Why try and hide this theory (and other social/historical perspectives) from critical study and review? Why not object on legitimate grounds, with informed ideas and accurate historical perspective from all points of view? This I ask of my students. Should we not expect the same from our taxpayer-funded Iowa elected officials?

James Dreier lives in Iowa City.

Read or Share this story: https://www.press-citizen.com/story/opinion/contributors/guest-editorials/2021/03/22/james-dreier-responds-to-holly-brink-on-free-speech-critical-race-theory-crt-cancel-culture/4641140001/

The rest is here:
If we're all about free speech and opposed to 'cancel culture,' then it has to go both ways - Iowa City Press-Citizen

In a show of bipartisanship, both conservatives and progressives testified against SB228 (Electronic Free Speech Amendments), which passed both chambers during the recent Utah legislative session and currently sits on Gov. Spencer Coxs desk for his signature or veto. We urge Cox to veto SB228 because it leverages the power of the government to violate the First Amendment rights of private companies.

Despite the hopeful title of this bill, giving governments more control over private speech is the opposite of promoting free speech.

For starters, this bill requires technology companies like Facebook, Google and even Parler to follow specific notification procedures, timelines and rules set by Utah lawmakers and submit to an untested appeals processes also set by Utah lawmakers for account holders who are suspended or find their content removed.

By requiring technology corporations to jump through new hoops created by government regulations, this bill could discourage social media platforms from halting online voter suppression, stopping the spread of misinformation directed by foreign governments, and even prevent the blocking of credible threats of violence if they relate to a political viewpoint.

If this bill takes effect, it could also result in less online speech for Utahns and expose them to more harassment and vitriol because technology companies would fear lawsuits and sanctions if they tried to proactively moderate content on their platforms.

Even worse, this bill would effectively authorize the government to force private online platforms to carry and distribute speech they would have previously restricted. Historically, the Internet has been less regulated than traditional media outlets like television and radio. This approach has given consumers more options and platforms to express themselves than ever before. Twitch, Discord, Reddit, Snapchat, Clubhouse, Locals, Pinterest, TikTok the list of alternatives to consider is expanding all the time. If the goal of this bill is to promote electronic free speech, it should follow the successful origins of the internet and rely on less government intervention, not more.

In addition, by trying to mandate absolute consistency in applying a social media platforms terms of use, legislators are making a bold assumption that such mandates are even feasible. Platforms like Facebook have tens of thousands of content moderators reviewing hundreds of thousands or even millions of posts, rendering moderation a daunting task.

Additionally, human content moderators carry implicit biases, and it is highly unlikely that you could get any random group of moderators to have a consensus decision on flagged content. While some supporters will call for a tech-based solution, that is based in fantasy, not reality. Even the most advanced artificial intelligence programs integrated into content moderation currently make mistakes, flagging harmless content as problematic, or vice versa. Content moderation, even with technology assistance, remains a subjective task that makes compelling consistency by law deeply problematic.

While we discourage private social media companies from blocking content based on viewpoint, its an entirely different matter and much clearer violation of our constitutional rights for the government to dictate what online platforms must publish or how they must exercise their subjective discretion in content moderation.

Lastly, constitutional experts have noted that SB228 clearly violates Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that protects websites from liability for content posted by third parties. This means the bill violates federal law and opens Utah up to lawsuits that will be a waste of time and taxpayer dollars to defend.

Perhaps sensing the shaky legal ground for this bill, the sponsor of SB228 delayed its effective date until July 1, 2022, to give time for its future repeal. But we dont have to wait for the likely lawsuits to stop this bill. Cox can and should veto it now.

Marina Lowe is the legislative and policy counsel at the ACLU of Utah. Connor Boyack is president of Libertas Institute and the author of 28 books.

See the original post:
Guest opinion: Giving government control is the opposite of free speech - Deseret News

Freedom of speech is a funny old thing. You offend roughly 2 billion Muslims by publishing a series of crass drawings of the Prophet Mohammed and the Western worlds media rushes to your defense, upholding your right to insult whoever you choose. Publish a cartoon showing Queen Elizabeth of Britain kneeling on the neck of actress-turned-duchess Meghan Markle, however, and your former allies turn on you en masse, howling outrage and labeling the illustration appalling, disturbing ... and wrong on every level.

Even the schoolboy humorists at French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, who are used to upsetting all and sundry, must be wondering where all that Je suis Charlie camaraderie went in the wake of its recent cover depicting the allegations of racism and schisms within the UKs House of Windsor.

Clearly, Western satirists are much more likely to be celebrated as champions of free speech for attacking minorities within their communities than for picking on one of Europes wealthiest and most privileged elites.

Charlie Hebdo first began insulting Muslims in February 2006, when it chose to reprint a series of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed that had been published the previous year by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, adding some of its own for good measure. The staffs of both publications were of course aware that doing so would offend Muslims, for whom depictions of any of the prophets even respectful illustrations are considered forms of idolatry, forbidden in Islam.

At the time, French President Jacques Chirac condemned the publication of the cartoons as an overt provocation, adding that anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular religious convictions, should be avoided.

Freedom of speech, in other words, is not the same as the freedom to gratuitously offend.

In November 2011, Charlie Hebdo was at it again, renaming itself Charia Hebdo for one edition, featuring a new cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed on the cover. Its offices were firebombed. In September 2012, it responded to international outrage over the release of the anti-Islamic film Innocence of Muslims by printing a further series of offensive depictions of the Prophet, again to official approbation.

In France, there is a principle of freedom of expression, which should not be undermined, said Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius. In the present context, given this absurd video that has been aired, strong emotions have been awakened in many Muslim countries. Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?

Finally, on Jan. 7, 2015, the magazines offices in Paris were attacked by Said and Cherif Kouachi, two French-born Algerian brothers who killed a dozen people, including Ahmed Merabet, a Muslim police officer. The following day, Amedy Coulibaly, a Malian-French acquaintance of the brothers, killed a policewoman in a Paris suburb. The next day, Coulibaly took hostages at a kosher supermarket, killing four before he was shot dead by police. At almost the same time the Kouachi brothers, holed up on an industrial estate Northeast of Paris, died in a shootout.

The rush to express solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and to uphold the right to freedom of speech was expressed in all-encompassing terms that served mainly to underline the them and us attitudes toward minorities that lurk just beneath the surface of most Western societies. We that is, the white and (largely notionally) Christian majority will not give in to them the Islamic extremists who are threatening our way of life.

Except, of course, there was, and is, no such threat.

The threat was posed by just a handful of deluded, radicalized men and, in any case, was in no real sense any kind of a threat to the fabric of Western society.

Muslims, en masse, were in no way trying to undermine our way of life. The vast majority of Muslims and the vast majority of all minorities in Western states wish only to assimilate and to improve their lives and the lives of their children. Their response to the cartoons was the response of all minorities reminded of their marginal status in society a sad shaking of the head.

Yet the response to the attacks in Paris in 2015, although provoked by the actions of a mere handful of people, was aimed, without logic or justification, at all Muslims, in much the same way that the offensive cartoons were calculated to offend all Muslims.

The Western medias response to the Charlie Hebdo tragedies exposed a moral vacuity.

Many media outlets, including the Washington Post, chose to reprint the offensive cartoons, arguing that not to do so was to give in to what was widely represented as an assault on the precious principle of free speech. This was a worse than vacuous stance, the product of a failure to define the fine line between free speech and a gratuitous offensiveness that can serve no purpose other than the perpetuation of bigotry and racial hatred.

Now, at least, the Western media is united in its understanding that the cartoon depicting Queen Elizabeth kneeling on Meghan Markels neck, evoking the death in 2020 of Black American George Floyd under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer, is an outrage that simply goes too far.

Time for a new internet meme, then, surely? Je suis Charlie as long as hes picking on Muslims.

Jonathan Gornall is a British journalist, formerly with The Times, who has lived and worked in the Middle East and is now based in the UK. The Daily Star publishes this commentary in collaboration with the Syndication Bureau.

See the original post here:
The hypocrisy within 'freedom of speech' | Opinion , Commentary | THE DAILY STAR - The Daily Star

Pakistan Resolution was a culmination of several years of struggle for freedom. Striving for independent states, the Resolution of 23rd March 1940 called for the provision of rights of minorities in the subcontinent. By its very essence, this landmark document makes a case for civil liberties. This concise document clearly chalks out the need for constitutional rights of Mussalmans and other minorities in India. Freedom of expression is, therefore, enshrined in the spirit of the Lahore Resolution or the Pakistan Resolution, as it was called later.

The last section of the Resolution states: the adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities. The minorities at that time included Muslims. These safeguards were to ensure the protection of religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests of Muslims and other minorities. Going by the aforementioned excerpts, it becomes evident that the right to freedom of speech can be derived from the Pakistan Resolution.

Pakistan Resolution was a precursor to the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan and the essential freedoms mentioned in the Resolution have been translated into the Constitution. Regarding freedom of speech and expression, Article 19 of the Constitution provides the right to freedom of speech and the protection of that right. The roots of this Article can be traced to the freedom movement and Pakistan Resolution. According to the Article 19, every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression. It also guarantees freedom of press and media.

It is important to understand the context of the Resolution and the events preceding the All-India Muslim League general session held on March 22-24, 1940. The rights and liberties of Muslims were suppressed by the Hindu majority as well as the British rule. Being a minority, Muslims were oppressed in cultural, political, economic and administrative fields of life. Freedom, liberty, and independence were the demands of Muslims as they fought for their rights. It is only with the freedom of expression that the oppressed can raise the voice of dissent against the oppressors. As such, the freedom movement and the ensuing Lahore Resolution have the freedom of speech, expression, and the right to dissent at their very core.

Since the inception of Pakistan, freedom of speech and press have been stifled at many times. In opposition to the spirit of the Resolution, there has been a struggle for the freedom of expression in Pakistan over the years. During the 72 years of Pakistans existence, whether it be democracy or dictatorship, the voice of dissent has often been suppressed. In contrast to the Resolution that called for individual and civil liberties, and freedom of speech being an essential liberty, toleration of difference of opinion has been remarkably low.

Pakistan has constantly ranked low on various freedom indexes and reports. As per the 2019 report on freedom of expression and press by the Reporters Sans Frontiers or Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Pakistan ranks at 142 out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index. Pakistan was on the 139th position in 2018 but the ranking deteriorated in 2019. According to the organisation, the intervention of military in media as the electoral process took placewas against independent journalism. Various other independent sources and non-profit organizations have also highlighted the hurdles and challenges to the freedom of expression. Considering the very roots of this nation and going back to the Pakistan Resolution, one finds such restrictions in contradiction to the freedoms the founding fathers fought for.

In Pakistan, freedom of speech remains a constant target by the rulers. According to the Human Rights Watch World Report 2019, the government continues to stifle dissenting voices in non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Furthermore, the report also indicates that militants and interest groups are also a threat to freedom of expression. Various bloggers, journalists, and proponents of free speech have been targeted in Pakistan and these human rights violations have been well documented. Such acts are in direct opposition to the freedoms enshrined in the Pakistan Resolution and the Constitution of Pakistan.

Given the challenges to the freedom of speech and expression, the Pakistan Resolution can indeed serve as a blueprint. The minority groups and those on the periphery should be allowed a voice in society. The founders of this nation fought for the rights and freedoms of minorities of that time and that is reflected in the basic documents and pre-independence speeches of leaders like Quaid-i-Azam.

Over the last couple of decades, the situation regarding freedom of speech and expression has certainly improved in Pakistan. That being said, some obstacles to the freedom of speech are still very much present. We can take a leaf out of Pakistan Resolution and the pre-Independence ideas of great founders of Pakistan and work on the provision of rights to free speech. Pakistan Resolution is a landmark document that is relevant even today and makes a cogent argument regarding liberty and independence.

The writer is an independent researcher based in Islamabad

Read this article:
Pakistan Resolution and freedom of speech - The News International

A student walks across the campus of Columbia University in New York, October 5, 2009. (Mike Segar/Reuters)Conservatives can, and should, form alliances with liberals committed to free speech to keep it alive.

Last week, I helped launch the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA), a nonprofit organization comprising college and university faculty members from across the ideological spectrum who are committed to defending each others free speech. I am a right-of-center libertarian in my own political views. Many of us on the right are familiar with the rising threat to conservative speech on campuses. Although conservative faculty are a minority on college campuses, theirs is not the only speech under threat in our current political environment. A good-faith review of the steady stream of speech controversies emerging from American university campuses makes evident that suppression of controversial ideas runs rampant on all sides.

Liberal and moderate academics are deeply affected by the erosion of tolerance for dissent on our college campuses. Many of them decline to speak out on controversial subjects precisely because of the fierce intimidation that they face from their own side and, to be frank, that they all too often face from politicians and activists on the political right. This creates an illusion of ideological conformity.Jonathan Zimmerman of the University of Pennsylvania, a self-described liberal Democrat and a founding member of the AFA, recently described the problem in an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune:

If youre affiliated with a college or university and it initiates a set of diversity trainings, you probably wont bring up research suggesting that these trainings either have a negligible impact on racial attitudes or make them worse. People might conclude that you dont support diversity, period. Thats just too big a risk to take, especially if you dont have tenure.

Or if your university releases a statement condemning acts of police violence, you wont ask out loud why it didnt also denounce the rioting that followed some of them. For the record, Biden has condemned both. But if you repeat what he said, dear professor, you might be reviled as a racist by the same colleagues who are celebrating Bidens projected victory.

For conservatives to win more support from liberal academics on free-speech issues, we must be willing to defend the rights of liberal academics to voice their own dissenting views. As a purely strategic matter, conservatives can build more support for the protection of their own speech rights by making common cause with liberal academics who wish to have their speech rights defended. Free critical inquiry and robust intellectual debate are at the very heart of what universities do, and we should recognize that conservatives and liberals alike have an interest in these universal principles. More broadly, the ability to have conversations across the ideological divide and to tolerate those with whom we differ is essential to living together in a liberal democracy. Universities should be models for how we build healthy communities despite our differences.

Another prominent left-leaning AFA member, Jeannie Suk Gersen of Harvard Law School, has written powerfully about free speech in the New Yorker. In March 2019, she defended her colleague, Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., an undergraduate dean at Harvard who was demonized and had his home vandalized after he agreed to serve as defense counsel for Harvey Weinstein. Gersen explained why this is a troubling sign of the times:

The core of due process is having a fair chance to be heard. This is something I tell my students, in some way or another, almost every day. That same principle, of hearing people out, is the basis of any free society. In all my roles, of teacher, lawyer, and writer, Ive never been more conscious of the principles wider implications. A chill has descended on our intellectual liveson the positions we feel free to question and express.

Its worth noting that Gersens defense wasnt enough. In May 2019, Harvard announced that it would not renew the appointments of Sullivan and his wife, Stephanie Robinson, as faculty deans. Sullivan, who is now also a member of the AFA, has come away from his experience with an even more emphatic commitment to free inquiry. As he wrote for the New York Times:

I am profoundly troubled by the reaction of university administrators who are in charge of student growth and development. The job of a teacher is to help students think through what constitutes a reasonable argument. It is a dereliction of duty for administrators to allow themselves to be bullied into unprincipled positions.

Unchecked emotion has replaced thoughtful reasoning on campus. Feelings are no longer subjected to evidence, analysis or empirical defense. Angry demands, rather than rigorous arguments, now appear to guide university policy.

I am proud to be allied today with Sullivan, Gersen, Zimmerman, and many other liberal academics in the AFA. All of the organizations members commit to defending speech rights regardless of whether we agree with the speech under attack. Mutual defense is the only reliable foundation for free speech in academia, media, or any other arena. If we are only prepared to defend the speech rights of those with whom we agree, then we are hardly committed to free speech at all, and we do a disservice to the liberal values that underlie American constitutionalism. The pursuit of truth is impossible unless all views may be presented, defended, and debated. This is why the AFAs mission statement declares, A threat to academic freedom anywhere is a threat to academic freedom everywhere.

The AFAs cross-ideological nature emphasizes the duty of both the Left and the Right to stand up for each other. It has become too easy to retreat into the familiar comfort of our ideological tribes and to stand in defense only of those with whom we most strongly agree. Neither universities nor a free society can survive like that. Despite our disagreements, we still share common ground. A commitment to free speech should be part of that common ground. Just as I on the right would hope to be defended by my colleagues on the left were my speech under fire, I must also be ready to defend my liberal colleagues even when, or especially when, their rights are called into question by those considered to be on my side. The members of the AFA have banded together in the common cause of supporting professors in their traditional mission of exploring difficult ideas and attempting to advance our understanding of the world, society, and humanity. We also hope to resist efforts to suppress those endeavors, whether the forces of censorship come from the left or the right.

No professor can be certain that he wont be next on cancel cultures chopping block. In fact, many progressives find it particularly difficult to teach classes on the subjects typically seen as liberal, such as gender, sexuality, or police brutality. The landmines are simply too plentiful. The risk of offending the sensibilities of students, alumni, or politicians is simply too great.

Many of my liberal colleagues in academia believe themselves to be in even greater danger of being silenced than conservatives. Whether they are right or wrong on the relative threat isnt the point. The point is that the sense of fear in modern academia is pervasive and the threats to free speech are widespread.

Many liberals and progressives are natural and eager allies for conservatives on free speech, and I am determined to continue finding such allies. We need their help, and they need ours. The AFA provides the space for this alliance to develop in the sphere of academia. We should be building such alliances on behalf of liberal values wherever we can.

Excerpt from:
Free Speech Is under Threat on College Campuses. Heres How to Fight Back - National Review

Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan joined Maria Bartiromo on "Fox News Primetime" and slammed the Democrats for not holding a hearing on the border crisis, while passing a bill that created a pathway for millions of illegal immigrants.

Weve said why not have this a hearingabout this crisis on the border.Instead they go around thecommittee and pass just 40minutes ago, Maria, they pass abill that gives amnesty to3 million illegal immigrants.So amnesty while there is thischaos on the border, I mean,this is so out-of-touch withwhere the American people are.But this is how radical left, theDemocrats are. And then, ofcourse, the cancel culture issuethis idea thatI always ask itthis way, do you have afunctioning First Amendment whenonly one side is allowed totalk?Do you have free speech whenonly the left can define whatcan be said?So that's the situation we arein.

The Judiciary Committee shouldbe focused on those two issues.Instead they pass radical thingslike defund the police, federalcontrol of the elections and nowan amnesty bill without havingthe kind of hearings you aresupposed to have on Capitol Hillin the United States Congress.

The House Judiciary member also targeted Big Tech for their efforts in suppressing major stories, such as Hunter Bidens emails, in the lead-up to the November general election.

We had twoamazing witnesses last week inthe hearing in one of thesubcommittees of the Judiciaryand they talked about thecollusion between Big Tech andcertain players in big mediawhere they kept the Hunter Bidenstory from we, the people.And everyone knew that. The pressknew about this, Big Tech knewabout this, but they kept itfrom the American people as weare getting ready for thebiggest election that we have,the presidential election.

So, what they are doing, notonly via cancel culture but whatthey did in the election, to makesure Americans didn't getimportant information, I think isso troublesome.So we're trying to figure outthe best way to deal with this.We think section 230 has to berepealed and reformed.We also think you have to lookat the antitrust law and thesize of some of these big techcompanies as we move forward.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW

Link:
Jim Jordan: 'Do you have free speech when only the left can define what can be said?' - Fox News

The Week

Ever since her toxic workplace scandal last year, Ellen DeGeneres' show has reportedly taken a significant hit in the ratings. The Ellen DeGeneres Show has lost more than one million viewers since September, when she opened her new season with an apology over accusations of a toxic work environment, The New York Times reported on Monday. She has reportedly averaged 1.5 million viewers over the last six months, down from 2.6 million during that stretch a year before. The comedian offered an on-air apology at the start of her 18th season in September, after a report from BuzzFeed News described alleged "racism, fear, and intimidation" at the show, and another BuzzFeed story said that "sexual harassment and misconduct by top executive producers runs rampant" there. "I learned that things happened here that never should have happened," DeGeneres said in September. "I take that very seriously, and I want to say I am so sorry to the people who were affected." DeGeneres' ratings actually were initially up at the start of the season, but the show has since experienced a 43 percent decline in viewership, according to the report. A Telepictures executive pointed to the fact that "broadcast is down across the board and Covid has been challenging for production." But the Times notes that other similar shows have been down less than DeGeneres'. For example, Dr. Phil's viewership is only down about 22 percent. Now, the Times' report also points out, DeGeneres is "uncomfortably close" in terms of viewership to the show hosted by Steve Wilkos, former Jerry Springer security guard raising questions about whether she'll continue hosting after her contract ends next year. More stories from theweek.comThere is no immigration crisisFox News host tells Trump that Biden's DHS secretary has resigned, notes her error after he applaudsA jump in Social Security benefits

The rest is here:
Jim Jordan: Do we have free speech when only the left is allowed to talk? - Yahoo News

Amazons recent removal of Ryan T. Andersons book When Harry Became Sally is an attack by a major corporation on free speech. This restriction reinforces our duty to allow free speech to thrive in the pursuit of truth in our own social and academic spheres without letting our bias blind us to unintended social censorship.

After Amazon removed Andersons book without warning and then refused to explain its action, Sens. Marco Rubio, Josh Hawley, Mike Braun and Mike Lee demanded that Amazons CEO Jeff Bezos explain this political censorship. Amazon responded on March 11, stating that Amazon has chosen not to sell books that frame LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness. Ryan Anderson claims that his book does no such thing.

The debate rages on.

There stand the facts of controversy surrounding When Harry Became Sally. My concern lies with those of the Republican senators: what does the removal of this book mean for free speech?

Last interterm at the University of Dallas, I had the opportunity to re-read and study When Harry Became Sally under Andersons guidance in his Natural Law and Public Affairs class. Both times I read it, I found the book to be what Anderson claims it to be: a well-articulated, compassionate and well-researched critique of the continuing discussion over transgenderism.

Regardless of where you fall on the transgenderism discussion, Andersons book is a valuable source of exposure to one side of the conversation.

Amazons decision to pull this book from its cyber-shelves silences a valid and widely held opinion on an extremely important social issue and could prove to be devastating to American society.

Silencing people because they do not agree with us is a tragic error that damages our ability to discover what is actually true. If we allow this sort of behavior to continue unchecked from corporate giants like Amazon, we are beginning to concede our right to free speech.

I would be equally outraged if Amazon had removed a pro-transgenderism book of the same caliber as Andersons from its inventory. Regardless of your opinion or identity, we all share the same humanity, and we should be able to have a full and inclusive discussion encompassing both sides of the argument.

Since most of us do not have the information or time to research these questions to their full extent, we rely on scholars to present us with the facts and details so that we may draw conclusions based on our understanding of ourselves and the truth. Always, this discernment requires treating both sides of an issue with equal care.

Not only must we maintain this openness in a public and corporate sphere, we must also do so in our immediate culture and society. How can we expect respect and openness in a large sphere if we cannot maintain it on a small and personal one?

By nature of UDs religious and political orientation, we tend to attract Catholic, conservative students. With this demographic, the prevailing opinion on campus tends to be conservative. I challenge UD to open the door wider.

UD prides itself on being an institution that creates independent thinkers. We are lucky to have this haven of intellectual freedom where non-woke opinions can be engaged. But if we claim to be independent thinkers, we must live it out.

Let us encourage conversation from the students who do not hold the popular beliefs on campus. Let us welcome dissenting opinions. Let us engage with the other side of the conversation.

This openness to challenge and dialogue does not mean that UDs catholic identity will be compromised. UD can maintain its mission of being a Catholic university while simultaneously living up to its claim of producing independent thinkers.

The university does not have to endorse ideologies or opinions that are inconsistent with its mission or catholic doctrine. It does not need to codify these dissenting opinions in its institutional policies or procedures. UD can and should continue to stand up for what it believes is the truth.

I am not advocating for a compromise of UDs explicitly expressed values and beliefs (which I happen to share). I am simply pointing out that UD has a duty to its students, faculty and larger community to be a platform where the truth can be challenged and wrestled with.

The UD community should actively support conversations on campus that deal with both sides of any given issue. We students should be willing to listen to those who disagree with us in a respectful and attentive manner. If all we ever encounter on campus simply reaffirms existing beliefs, how can we call ourselves independent thinkers?

Willingness to discuss both sides of an issue reinforces the validity of our personally held opinions. Lack of exposure or simple refusal to have these conversations signifies that we are either afraid of being proven wrong or content to live in ignorance.

I do not get that impression from either UD or its students.

The independent, truth-seeking spirit of UD is becoming more important than ever, and we need to rise to that challenge as a community.

View original post here:
Amazon's censorship reminds us of UD's need to protect free speech - University of Dallas University News

I probably agree with Samantha Harris 90 percent of the way when it comes to Critical Race Theory, the need for open debate, and the difference between teaching and indoctrination. It sounds like her firm is going to do good work in holding abusive college administrations to account. But I still dont see why it should be considered censorship when a state legislature tries to block harmful fads from making their way into government-funded classrooms.

Nor do I see any distinction in principle between making schools conduct an annual assessment saying that theyre exposing students to a variety of perspectives (which she suggests is praiseworthy legislation) and telling them not to base classes on propaganda (which she says would compromise freedom). If we were talking about private schools, Id be inclined to oppose either kind of legislation. If were talking about how government-funded, government-run schools, whether either or both kinds of legislation are warranted seems like a prudential judgment.

See original here:
Free Speech in the Classroom - National Review