1/ As the new academic year begins, I have some advice for students entering colleges and universities--especially conservative and religiously observant students whose views will place them "outside the mainstream" of secular progressive campus opinion. mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustic…
2/ You'll encounter double standards. Don't be quiet about them. Ask for them to be removed. If necessary, be assertive and persistent, though always respectful, relying on the force of argument and the power of reason.
3/ You may experience prejudice, perhaps in grading, perhaps in other areas of your academic or social life on campus. If you do, try to find a friendly faculty member who can guide you and perhaps even advocate for you in addressing the injustice.
4/ Ask around to identify faculty members who have spoken out for freedom of speech and viewpoint diversity. Go to the website of the Academic Freedom Alliance--www.academicfreedom.org--to see if any members of the AFA are on the faculty of your institution. (Members are listed.)
5/ It's easier for those of us on the faculty to make an issue of unfairness to students than it is for you to try to do so alone. There are some of us who'll support you and insist that you be treated fairly and that your right to equal, non-discriminatory treatment be honored.
6/ Do not, however, confuse being challenged or criticized with being discriminated against or victimized. Insist on your right to free speech, but remember that others have that right too. They can use it to challenge even your deepest, most cherished, identify-forming beliefs.
7/ They do you no harm in challenging your convictions, just as you do them no harm in challenging their progressive or secularist beliefs. In fact, we do each other a service, not an injustice or wrong, in challenging and critcizing each other's ideas.
8/ As a college or university student you are one of the luckiest--most privileged--people on planet earth. Do not think of yourself as a victim. Do not build an identity for yourself around grievances, despite the double standards, and even if you experience some injustices.
9/ Thinking is not something that can be outsourced. You have to do it for yourself. Don't let your professors tell you what to think. Don't let popular opinion on campus dictate your convictions. If a professor tries to indoctrinate you, resist. His or her job is to educate you.
10/ Indoctrination is the antithesis of education. If there's groupthink on campus the response it should trigger in you is a desire to probe and question. "What's to be said on the other side? Are there thinkers and writers who doubt or deny the 'consensus'?" Find and read them.
11/ Make up your own mind. Think for yourself. Don't be a bully and don't let anyone bully you. If you reach a conclusion that defies the groupthink, don't be afraid to speak your mind about it. Don't censor yourself.
12/ Defend anyone and everyone else's right to think for themselves and express their views, whether or not you share them. When someone comes under attack or is at risk of "cancellation" by an "outrage mob" for expressing an opinion, stand up in support of that person's rights.
13/ By defending robust free speech for all, you are helping to uphold core values without which the university cannot pursue its mission as a truth-seeking institution. Be the kid on the playground who rushes to the defense of the kid who is being bullied.
14/ Do business in the proper currency of academic discourse--a currency consisting of reasons, evidence, and arguments. Challenge your interlocutors to do business in that currency. If they resort to forms of manipulation or to intimidation tactics--defy them and call them out.
15/ Don't hesitate to be blunt in saying, "The name-calling and bullying won't work with me. If you've got an argument, I'll be delighted to hear it and reply. Those are the terms of discussion, as far as I'm concerned. So, do you have an argument, or do you not? I'm waiting."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ "Where there is a faculty consensus on political matters, that consensus provides no justification for a non-sectarian university or one of its units to publicly commit itself to that, or any, political position." theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
2/ If anything, a faculty consensus on political issues on which there is broad disagreement among reasonable people of goodwill raises the question of WHY there is uniformity. Where are the dissenting voices? Has groupthink set in—in a department, or perhaps in an entire field?
3/ What message does the absence of dissenting voices send to students? Has there been discrimination or favoritism based on viewpoint? Has it affected hiring and promotion decisions, or created a hostile environment for people who doubt, or dissent from, established orthodoxies?
1/ It's OK to disagree--even about the most important issues. Where liberty of conscience and freedom of speech are in place, disagreement is inevitable. Big issues are hard--there are burdens of judgment--and all of us are fallible. None of us gets things perfectly right.
2/ When we disagree, don't silence people who think differently. Don't violate their right to speak. Don't shout them down. Certainly don't call for them to be murdered! Contest their points by giving your reasons, citing your evidence, and making your arguments. Then listen.
3/ Let them make their counterarguments and see if you can learn anything from them. Perhaps you'll be persuaded to abandon or revise your view. Even if you're not, you may well have your understanding of the matter enriched and deepened. But that requires honest engagement.
@DavidLat offers a spirited defense of Stanford Law Dean Jenny Martinez's handling of the disruption of a speaker by students. I think Mr. Lat's defense fails, but as a counterpoint to my more critical view, I urge my followers to read and consider it. open.substack.com/pub/davidlat/p…
David Lat suggests that Dean Martinez was constrained by certain facts on the ground: "Let’s be realistic: Dean Martinez is the leader of an elite law school in the year 2023. Her faculty has a single public-law conservative. Her student body is overwhelmingly progressive."
All true, of course--but none of these facts should have made the slightest difference to how the students who disrupted a speaker in violation of Stanford Law School's rules and other people's rights were treated. Moreover, calling attention to them raises important questions:
Day 8. More than a week has now gone by, and no announcement of an investigation or disciplinary proceedings against students who shut down a speaker at Stanford Law School. Have the bullies succeeded in intimidating the Dean?
Day 9. Stanford Law Dean Martinez knows what the right thing to do is. It's what she WOULD be doing had a right-wing mob disrupted a left-wing group's speaking event. The perpetrators would have been held accountable. So why are the perps not being held accountable in this case?
Day 10. What actions would Stanford's administration have taken by now had pro-life students disrupted and shut down a speech by Justice Sonia Sotomayor hosted by the Stanford Law School Women of Color Collective? Why have those actions not been taken? End the double standard.
1/ The shameful incident at Stanford Law School happened because SLS, like so many other academic institutions, has become an ideological echo chamber. Such incidents can be prevented, but only by enhancing viewpoint diversity, especially among faculty and administrators.
2/ The core of the problem is that Woke students, being constantly confirmed in their beliefs and not having them regularly challenged, come to suppose that they are self-evidently true to any reasonable and decent person, and that anyone who doesn't share them must be a bigot.
3/ Suddenly hearing someone challenge their beliefs, or even knowing that someone is present on the campus who challenges their beliefs, is perceived by them as an outrage, a personal assault, an attack on "our" community and its most cherished values.
A large number of Stanford Law students disrupted a speaker and prevented others from hearing him, in gross violation of Stanford's rules. Dean Martinez has a duty to take disciplinary action against them. Will she? If so, how many days will pass before she does? I'll keep count.
Day 2. Will Dean Martinez of Stanford Law School take disciplinary action against students who by disrupting Judge Duncan's talk violated his right to speak, the right of fellow students to hear a speaker, and Stanford's free speech rules? Or is free speech dead at Stanford Law?
Day 3. Dean Martinez and President Tessier-Levigne have apologized to Judge Duncan for the misconduct of students who disrupted his talk and the inappropriate behavior of admistrators. But what disciplinary action will be taken? And when? If none is taken, this will happen again.