![]() ![]() But when one party asserts that a debate threatens their very well-being, it is hard to deliberate on policy-or topics such as race and gender. ![]() In The Coddling of the American Mind, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt describe the recent emergence and rapid spread on college campuses of what they call “safetyism,” a view that “equates emotional discomfort with physical danger.” Safetyism, they write, teaches students “to see words as violence and interpret ideas and speakers as safe versus dangerous.”Ĭonfronted with words, ideas, or decisions they dislike, a growing number of people are asserting that they are in danger of suffering psychological or even bodily harm. The language used by the Times staffers is indicative of a wider trend. “Running this puts Black staff in danger,” many of them tweeted. But that quickly changed after Black employees asserted not just that Cotton’s argument was morally repugnant, or that he failed to make it in a way that met the Times ’ standards, but that the piece threatened their lives. Sulzberger, the paper’s publisher, publicly expressed his support for the decision to run the op-ed. James Bennet’s resignation from his position as the editorial page editor of the New York Times quickly became the genesis story of today’s debate about “cancel culture.” Bennet was pressured to depart after he ran an op-ed by Tom Cotton, a Republican Senator from Arkansas, whose argument that the military should be used to respond to riots caused an uproar among the paper’s staff.Īt first, A. To that end, here is my taxonomy of fear. Analyzing and understanding these can help us stand up to the illiberalism of this moment, whether it comes from the left or the right. But there are rules and patterns to the ways in which speech is being silenced. The process by which sinners are punished and apostates expelled can seem random. Upholding these values will help us defeat Trumpism. But it is also our moral and strategic obligation to vigorously defend the principles of a free society. Of course, we must keep our focus on the danger this administration presents. It makes sense to be part of the silenced majority when the price you pay for an errant tweet or remark can be the end of your livelihood.ĭo these problems really matter so long as we have a president who daily tramples on rights, civil discourse, and the rule of law? They do. Naturally, people are deciding the best course is to shut up. ![]() It’s as if a daily script went out describing what’s acceptable, and those who flub a line-or don’t even know a script exists-are rarely given the benefit of the doubt, no matter how benign their intent. The cultural rules around hot button issues are ever-expanding. They are coming to a high school or corporate HR office near you. Now, these practices are breaching the ivy wall. Campuses have bureaucracies that routinely undermine free speech and due process. Institutions that are supposed to be guardians of free expression-academia and journalism in particular-are becoming enforcers of conformity. But as more and more topics become too risky to discuss outside of the prevailing orthodoxies, it makes sense to constantly self-censor, feeling unbound only when part of a denunciatory pack. There might seem to be a contradiction between being fearful and fearless, between weighing every word you say and attacking others with abandon. We live in a time of personal timorousness and collective mercilessness.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |