Are the liberal elites muzzling dissent?

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,473
Reaction score
3,795
Location
Northern VA
Interesting piece I read today...
Watch What You Say, The New Liberal Power Elite Won't Tolerate Dissent


In ways not seen since at least the McCarthy era, Americans are finding themselves increasingly constrained by a rising class—what I call the progressive Clerisy—that accepts no dissent from its basic tenets. Like the First Estate in pre-revolutionary France, the Clerisy increasingly exercises its power to constrain dissenting views, whether on politics, social attitudes or science.

An alliance of upper level bureaucrats and cultural elites, the Clerisy, for for all their concerns about inequality, have thrived, unlike most Americans, in recent years. They also enjoy strong relations with the power structure in Washington, Silicon Valley, Hollywood and Wall Street.

As the modern clerisy has seen its own power grow, even while the middle class shrinks, it has used its influence to enforce a prescribed set of acceptable ideas. On everything from gender and sexual preference to climate change, those who dissent from the official pieties risk punishment.

This power has been seen recently in a host of cancellations of commencement speakers. Just in the past few months Ayaan Hirsi Ali, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, International Monetary Fund managing director Christine Lagarde, and former UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, have been prevented from speaking by campus virtue squads whose sensibilities they had offended.

I'd love to hear from academics, especially, about this. I know one academic who is incredibly cautious about their online activities not being identified with their professional persona -- not that I personally would think that anything they do online is less than a credit to them as a person and an academic. But, obviously, anyone else can and should chime in... I've seen signs myself, like the aforementioned cancellations of speakers... Nobody is allowed to challenge or offend anyone else's preconceptions, it seems....
 

crushing

Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
5,082
Reaction score
136
Reading the articles, I found that some of the commencement speakers are withdrawing of their own accord when met with protests and petitions. Could it be that speakers are more (overly?) sensitive to such protests and give up their speaking engagement much more easily than speakers of the past?

The loudest voices decrying the cancellations of commencement speakers have been liberals. I am not surprised by some piling on that will occur to gain a political advantage. Such cancellations are antithetical to the liberalism that the US was founded upon. There certainly must be a better term for this anti-liberalism than 'liberal elite.' What is curious, other than Rice, most of the speakers withdrawing due to protests or being 'dis-invited' are liberals who have been accused of insulting much more conservative populations and communities.
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
The rejection of commencement speakers with differing views bothers me. Colleges should welcome people of differing opinions in order to generate debate. It seems to be that it started with students rightfully protesting a couple of outrageous choices--virtual war criminals who would not raise the level of discussion but merely see their own stock rise after having spoken at a major NYC university--but has gotten way out of hand. Condi Rice played a big role in our history--let's hear from her! I'm no fan of Dick Cheney, say, but would welcome giving him the chance to air his views. I do like to see college students politically involved so I view this more as the pendulum having swung too far from "college students don't acre at all about politics" to " college students need to chill out about politics" and I'm hopeful it'll right itself soon. Meanwhile, it's true that many of the would-be speakers are withdrawing rather than having controversy surround them, and there'll always be someone who complains, so it isn't entirely one-sided. Also, college kids are not the "liberal elite".

At least one replacement commencement speaker blasted the crowd for driving away the first choice.
 
OP
J

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,473
Reaction score
3,795
Location
Northern VA
Reading the articles, I found that some of the commencement speakers are withdrawing of their own accord when met with protests and petitions. Could it be that speakers are more (overly?) sensitive to such protests and give up their speaking engagement much more easily than speakers of the past?

The loudest voices decrying the cancellations of commencement speakers have been liberals. I am not surprised by some piling on that will occur to gain a political advantage. Such cancellations are antithetical to the liberalism that the US was founded upon. There certainly must be a better term for this anti-liberalism than 'liberal elite.' What is curious, other than Rice, most of the speakers withdrawing due to protests or being 'dis-invited' are liberals who have been accused of insulting much more conservative populations and communities.

While several have backed out of commencements or other speaking engagements on their own accord rather than cause a disruption -- isn't that still a form of pushing their opinion out of sight?
 

crushing

Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
5,082
Reaction score
136
While several have backed out of commencements or other speaking engagements on their own accord rather than cause a disruption -- isn't that still a form of pushing their opinion out of sight?

Definitely.
 

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
Colleges Leave Conservatives Out of Commencement Ceremonies - US News

Conservatives are disappearing from commencement programs, according to Harry Enten at the data-crunching site FiveThirtyEight. Over the past two years, the top 30 universities and top 30 liberal arts colleges hosted 20 political commencement speakers, with nary a conservative in their ranks. Quite a change from 10 years earlier, when political speakers were more evenly split between liberals and conservatives.


While noting the change is due in part to a difference in political climate – 10 years ago there was a Republican administration and the GOP was more popular – Enten concludes that polarization bears the bulk of the blame. Many people don’t like hearing contrary views, he writes, so “on elite college campuses, where supporters of Democrats outnumber Republicans, the lack of conservative speakers isn’t surprising.” Perhaps not surprising, but a troubling trend these colleges should work to reverse
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
It's well-established that liberalism correlates strongly with all measures of education and intelligence. You have to expect college populations to be disproportionately liberal. ("I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." --John Stuart Mill) In addition, a liberal attitude is intrinsically a part of a college's approach to knowledge. The liberal bias is built-in by it being a university in the first place. You can't have depts. of anti-climate-studies and anti-evolution that push forward the envelopes of knowledge; you have to be open to new ideas. To expect a 50-50 liberal/conservative split isn't reasonable.

Colleges should be bringing in speakers with contrary views. Commencement isn't the best time, perhaps--it's for the parents in many ways, and also, sadly, to court potential donors--but in general, this should happen. At a very liberal California college I heard a debate between Al Haig and Bruce Babbit circa 1990. That's what I expect at a college. I'd like to hear from Condi Rice.
 

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
It's well-established that liberalism correlates strongly with all measures of education and intelligence.

Actually, it's not...unless it is a study done by a liberal...

As to liberals and science...

http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/20/why-democrats-are-the-party-of-science/

What are we doing wrong? Or we might turn ask: what are they doing right? In fact, there are many factors that explain the scientific community’s liberal bent, and it would be well to begin by mentioning the obvious. One relates to bioethics. Scientists get impatient with (overwhelmingly conservative) worries about the ethical implications of certain lines of research. Another issue relates to different attitudes towards industry. Here it is conservatives who prefer a laissez faire approach while liberals regularly enlist scientists as their allies in demanding more governmental regulation.

Then there is the matter of funding. Here the questions become quite difficult, because scientists perpetually have their hats in their hands, and it’s hard to decide how much to allot to whom. Of course, some research does prove to be a superb investment. On the other hand, scientists like wasting money as much as the next public rent-seeker, with their main distinction being that they are hard to monitor, since it often takes years of study even to get a good sense for what a particular laboratory actually does. (And by the time a person has undertaken that much study, he has usually been culturally “inducted” into the scientific community, such that he is loathe to undercut its interests.) Liberals get in the good graces of scientists through their general willingness to splash out grants to all and sundry; conservatives, as the “stingy mama” of the American political landscape, are not so well loved.

Putting all of these factors together, it makes some sense the scientists would lean left. But this is not enough to fully explain the depths of anti-conservative hostility among scientists.

Liberals are right at least to suggest that conservatives can be quite contrarian with respect to certain scientific “causes.” But this stance is not (as they typically suppose) a symptom of a conservative aversion to reality, nor of an axiomatic willingness to defer to religious authority over empirically demonstrable truth.

In fact it is liberals who have become deeply confused about the true purpose of scientific research. If we consider more deeply what science really is, we will come to see that conservatives have never rejected science per se. They do, however, have a deep hostility towards those extra-scientific accretions that have enabled scientists to assume a prestigious political and spiritual role in liberal society. Unfortunately, these philosophical and political trends are unhealthy, not only for American politics, but also for science itself.

Climate Change: A Case Study

For decades, evolution represented the primary scientific-moral flashpoint in American society. But after milking the Scopes Monkey Trial for more than half a century, liberal scientists wisely recognized that it was time to change things up a little. Thus we have a new scientific crusade in “climate change.” This is the new favorite liberal example of conservative reactionary know-nothingism. Unsurprisingly, it is also an excellent exemplar of everything wrong with the liberal attitude towards science.

We scoff across the aisle at the harbingers of meteorological doom because we recognize in climate change the marks of an unholy scientific-moral crusade. We note the sloppiness with which the movement’s apologists slide together the various scientific, moral and political questions that are relevant to their cause. We see how they play fast and loose with the evidence. We note as well the violence with which they throw aside the inquiries of anyone who demands greater precision and accountability.

Conservatives know that these scientific-moral crusades will arise periodically whether or not the world is in trouble. Perhaps the most amusing component of the climate change circus is the appeal for righteous activism, and even personal sacrifice. Note, for example, the way in which liberals piously obsess over minor personal habits in an effort to reduce their “carbon footprints.” (Hold the pineapple, Minnesotans!) I used to find this maddeningly ludicrous. Why are we obsessing over tropical fruits when we could be having productive conversations about (say) viable energy alternatives such as fracking or nuclear power? Eventually I realized that these little sacrifices and lifestyle adjustments actually filled a psychological and spiritual need for many liberals. They were a secular variation of my Lenten fasting.
 
Last edited:

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
Since climate change is real, basing your case on opposition to it is a sandy foundation for an argument. Conservative opposition to evolution and climate change is both predictable and wrong. The claim that a vast conspiracy of greedy or otherwise ill-intentioned scientists is hiding the truth--liberals muzzling dissent--would be hilarious if it weren't actually hampering education of children and action on the environment. Conservatives are attempting to create dissent where it does not exist--most notable with creationism/ID.
 

oftheherd1

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
4,685
Reaction score
817
Since climate change is real, basing your case on opposition to it is a sandy foundation for an argument. Conservative opposition to evolution and climate change is both predictable and wrong. The claim that a vast conspiracy of greedy or otherwise ill-intentioned scientists is hiding the truth--liberals muzzling dissent--would be hilarious if it weren't actually hampering education of children and action on the environment. Conservatives are attempting to create dissent where it does not exist--most notable with creationism/ID.

I think you might find many liberal religious people who strongly believe in creationism. As to hampering education, wouldn't disallowing the teaching of creationism also be hampering education?
 

Rumy73

Black Belt
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
588
Reaction score
10
Location
Washington, DC
Tolerance for differing points of view is strained; and frankly, it always has been. I think college is the best time to listen to alternate views. While some high profile cases of overly sensitive liberal agendas in this matter have made it to the press, the problem is all over. I am confident we are not hearing about this on more conservative campuses, because they are not inviting similarly situated figures of the left. Imagine Catholic University having the head of planned parenthood at commencement?
 

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
1,246
Since climate change is real, basing your case on opposition to it is a sandy foundation for an argument. Conservative opposition to evolution and climate change is both predictable and wrong. The claim that a vast conspiracy of greedy or otherwise ill-intentioned scientists is hiding the truth--liberals muzzling dissent--would be hilarious if it weren't actually hampering education of children and action on the environment. Conservatives are attempting to create dissent where it does not exist--most notable with creationism/ID.

100% false. There are many people smarter then you and I that disagree with you.
 

crushing

Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
5,082
Reaction score
136
I think you might find many liberal religious people who strongly believe in creationism. As to hampering education, wouldn't disallowing the teaching of creationism also be hampering education?

Do you have a specific creation story in mind? There are many that were dreamed up prior to the great strides we've made in understanding the world around us.

Here are just a few of the documented beliefs in creationism:
List of creation myths - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
1,246

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
I find the "liberal" meme of tolerance and acceptance in stark contrast with the yelling down and insulting of more conservative opinions. It seems to be all about TOLERANCE...except for tolerating things that conflict with your worldview.

Of course many conservatives are intolerant of liberal views, but they don"t have TOLERANCE ACCEPTANCE RESPECT tattooed across their figurative backs for the world to see and admire....walk the talk.....
 

crushing

Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
5,082
Reaction score
136
Yes, the Paradox of Tolerance has been brought up a few times recently.

"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice." -Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Unfortunately, intolerance of intolerance is sometimes branded as yelling down and insulting and given false equivalency to regular ol' intolerance.
 

Rumy73

Black Belt
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
588
Reaction score
10
Location
Washington, DC
I am intolerant of things, but I exercise that in a measured way.

Since we are talking about this topic, i recall a sad series of events where birthers attempted to shout down Obama.
 

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
1,246
I am intolerant of things, but I exercise that in a measured way.

Since we are talking about this topic, i recall a sad series of events where birthers attempted to shout down Obama.
Im not sure you can "shout down" The President of the United States no matter who it is
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
I think you might find many liberal religious people who strongly believe in creationism.

The numbers are much, much lower.

As to hampering education, wouldn't disallowing the teaching of creationism also be hampering education?

No--no more than if the aether theory, or the caloric theory, or the Eudoxian spheres theory isn't taught. (Generally, they aren't.) But what happens is conservatives pushing for the inclusion of this in science as a scientific theory--which it is not. Teaching creationism as science is simply counterfactual, and that's why it isn't considered proper for a scientific setting (but could in other settings, e.g., philosophy of science).
 

Latest Discussions

Top