Behind the criticism though, of these three, is the years and many incidents whereby conservative speech has been shut down and the university has failed to protect speakers whose viewpoints have been unpopular with a very vocal minority willing to undertake to stop the speech "by all means necessary." W…
Behind the criticism though, of these three, is the years and many incidents whereby conservative speech has been shut down and the university has failed to protect speakers whose viewpoints have been unpopular with a very vocal minority willing to undertake to stop the speech "by all means necessary." With these poor credentials then, the voiced commitment to free speech rings hollow, and when we hear such stentorian commitments to it voiced only NOW do our ears perk up.
Simply put, I do NOT believe them when they said that they would react exactly the same if other minorities were denounced. I believe there would be serious repercussions for the speaker. Not a rousing defense of free speech.
So, yes. the commitment to free speech isn't itself a problem. It would be in fact commendable had it not been that until now it was mostly lacking. Hearing a commitment to free speech ONLY when that speech is calling for your head doesn't sound a like a call for free speech, and only a fool would take it so.
And I don't disagree with you, as I basically say at multiple points in the essay. E.g., the paragraph condemning free-speech selectivity, as well as the discussion of how university leaders are conveniently discovering free speech now that Jews are the ones being killed (as opposed to some other minority).
So I guess the question is, in light of all the bad stuff in the past, where do we go from here? My general view, implicit in this essay, is that we should try for a "reset," in which we return to valuing free speech across the board—as opposed to "let's use our power to try and cancel the other side, since they've been doing that to us for years."
Yes, but I think that's the main point, not a "yes but" one. Hearing calls for free speech only now are perhaps even worse given how much we know that they've been avoided till now.
Where do we go now? I'd say if an institution wants to rededicate itself to the purpose of a university and administer the Chicago principles, it needs to start with someone unstained by complicity with the old order.
In short, they need new leadership. It may be a stiff price to pay, but I think it's necessary if they are to convince people that a rededication to free speech is anything but a PR fire drill.
I 100% agree with you in a vacuum.
Behind the criticism though, of these three, is the years and many incidents whereby conservative speech has been shut down and the university has failed to protect speakers whose viewpoints have been unpopular with a very vocal minority willing to undertake to stop the speech "by all means necessary." With these poor credentials then, the voiced commitment to free speech rings hollow, and when we hear such stentorian commitments to it voiced only NOW do our ears perk up.
Simply put, I do NOT believe them when they said that they would react exactly the same if other minorities were denounced. I believe there would be serious repercussions for the speaker. Not a rousing defense of free speech.
So, yes. the commitment to free speech isn't itself a problem. It would be in fact commendable had it not been that until now it was mostly lacking. Hearing a commitment to free speech ONLY when that speech is calling for your head doesn't sound a like a call for free speech, and only a fool would take it so.
And I don't disagree with you, as I basically say at multiple points in the essay. E.g., the paragraph condemning free-speech selectivity, as well as the discussion of how university leaders are conveniently discovering free speech now that Jews are the ones being killed (as opposed to some other minority).
So I guess the question is, in light of all the bad stuff in the past, where do we go from here? My general view, implicit in this essay, is that we should try for a "reset," in which we return to valuing free speech across the board—as opposed to "let's use our power to try and cancel the other side, since they've been doing that to us for years."
Yes, but I think that's the main point, not a "yes but" one. Hearing calls for free speech only now are perhaps even worse given how much we know that they've been avoided till now.
Where do we go now? I'd say if an institution wants to rededicate itself to the purpose of a university and administer the Chicago principles, it needs to start with someone unstained by complicity with the old order.
In short, they need new leadership. It may be a stiff price to pay, but I think it's necessary if they are to convince people that a rededication to free speech is anything but a PR fire drill.