The next generation of
neo-progressive Ivy League educated social engineers is rising, and the future
for free speech looks bleak as a result. One of this next wave of radical is The Harvard Crimson writer Sandra Y.L.
Korn. In a recent piece,
she argues that academia should give up academic freedom in favor of “justice.”
Korn argues that the liberal
doctrine of academic freedom “seems a bit misplaced.” She asks: “If our
university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we
put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of academic
freedom’?” She suggests replacing academic freedom, that bastion of higher
education in free nations, with something called “academic justice.” She
explains this by stating: “When an academic community observes research
promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does
not continue.”
Korn’s targets include Harvard
faculty member Harvey Mansfield, who published a non-politically correct book
entitled Manliness. According to
Korn, Mansfield’s book contains the
view that “to resist rape a woman needs … a certain ladylike modesty.” While
she laments that academic freedom would allow such a book to be published, her
proposed “academic justice” would not.
Let us assume that some Harvard
professor publishes the most appalling book imaginable. We can imagine that this
book is as anti-Semitic as Mein Kampf,
as racist as Birth of a Nation, as
sexist as anything the Marquis de Sade wrote. Let
us also assume that this book advocates kicking puppies, stomping kittens,
supporting the British Monarchy, and not washing behind your ears. Is it more
beneficial that such a book be published or that it be censored?
For what a Harvard education
costs, one would think that they would still teach John Stuart Mill. Or perhaps
Ms. Korn was busy buying Che T-shirts, drinking expensive iced coffees, being
ironic, or whatever it is that overprivileged Ivy League hipsters do these days
as they prepare to become the next generation of neo-progressive statist
busybodies. Anticipating the eventual Supreme Court view on the First
Amendment, Mill argues that more speech is always better for society than less
speech. According to Mill, speech is always beneficial whether it expresses
something true or something false. Even when the something false is ugly and
offensive. If speech that is suppressed in the name of “academic justice” is
true, then we have all lost something valuable. If speech that is suppressed in
the name of “academic justice” is false, then we have lost the opportunity to
rationally oppose the falsehoods. Providing rational arguments against
falsehoods makes the holders of such true views stronger. Without such
practice, the truth begins to lose its strength. It becomes taken for granted
rather than rationally appreciated. By censoring even the most egregious
falsehoods, we risk turning our cherished truths into nothing but stale and
dead dogma. When this happens, it actually increases the likelihood that
falsehood will be smuggled into our core beliefs when we begin to lose the
ability to tell it apart from truth.
Apart from Mill’s argument, the
question arises as to who is going to decide what works justify oppression.
Presumably it will be some mob of elitist social engineers like Ms. Korn. What
gives them the right to decide what should be published in academia? Ultimately
such busybodies surely wish to export these ideas from academia to government.
What gives such busybodies the right to decide what should be published in
general? The Nazis who burned books similarly believed that they were promoting
“justice.” Were they correct? Why should we expect any group to be correct
about censorship? It is hubris for Ms. Korn and those like her to believe that
they are wiser than society as a whole in determining what speech is valuable.
No comments:
Post a Comment