The bedrock principle of Academia, since the time of Plato, is that "institutional disconfirmation" makes us smarter. That is, that subjecting your ideas to scrutiny and confirmation, or disconformation, by intellectual peers (peer review) results in better ideas and more accurate knowledge. Socrates argued with his student, Plato ... and Plato with his student, Aristotle. And the great academic tradition was born.
But what happens when all your intellectual peers believe exactly as you do? Worse, what happens when all your intellectual peers are committed to preventing disconfirming arguments from even being heard?
This is the current state of affairs in almost all universities and it's having disastrous results. Universities have become so ideologically pure (Far Left) that there's no one left to challenge their truth-claims. John Stuart Mills once stated, "He who knows only his side of the case knows little of that." Given the ideological homogeneity of the Humanities, there is simply no check and balance. Currently, there is a "replication crisis" in science, and in social psychology in particular. Specifically, the results of the majority of published research papers cannot be replicated by other researchers. What's truly frightening is that much of this research has found its way into public policy. It has become, or is becoming, law.
"There's an infinite number of genders." Really? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Right? Where's the extraordinary evidence? Or any evidence, for that matter? Is there any supporting evidence emanating from say: Biology, Chemistry, Neuroscience or Genetics ... or is it just the ideological assertions of a handful Gender Studies Professors (whose tools of discovery amount to a pen and a pad of paper). "Gender is independent of biological sex." Says who? And why should I believe them? Ought not the onus be on them to provide evidence-of-their-assertion? And if they don't, ought not I be justified in being skeptical of such assertion?
While "identity politics" has overrun the Academy, it is also now, almost inarguably, the primary organizing principle of the Far Left (and increasingly, the mainstream Left) outside of universities. And while "gender identity" issues have recently roiled newsfeeds (think Bathroom Bills, Jordan Peterson & Wilfred Laurier University), the matter extends to a host of other contentious issues: The Wage Gap; Black Lives Matter; and Illegal Immigration, to name but a few.
And it's not just that there's "discord in the discussions" ... it's that there's no discussions at all. And more troubling, it's that attempts to have discussions are being suppressed. From campus protests (riots) "no-platforming" conservative speakers to "safe spaces" to "trigger warnings" to "cultural appropriation," the Far Left is systematically blackmailing the Academy into submission. And don't just blame the "Millennial students," they're being lead by activist professors and compliant administrators.
Western Societies have a long history of political, cultural and philosophical disagreement. So, ideological fisticuffs and hyperbolic rhetoric is nothing new. What is new is the seeming unwillingness to even discuss such differences - even in the institutions whose very raison d'etre is ... such discussions. Universities.
One need not spend much time studying history before coming to the conclusion that there are two, and only two, ways that such rancor gets resolved: Words and war. Having spent years in countries (as a soldier) that gravitate towards the latter, I can promise you, the former is preferable. Until recently, this was a sentiment embraced by nearly all academics irrespective of their political colorings.
The matter is no longer a contest of egos between eggheads. It has spilled out into society-at-large and is proving extremely divisive. The insight of the Enlightenment was the mechanism by which such disputes might be equitably resolved: The parties presented their respective arguments, buttressed by observable facts and supporting evidence. Their respective arguments were then weighed by disinterested and dispassionate peers and the most persuasive argument prevailed. If that sounds familiar, it is also the basis of our "Adversarial System of Law." Like any system, it's not perfect. And seldomly is "a fair shot at being right" satisfying for those who lose. Nevertheless, the alternative is chaos.
There is hope. An increasing number of academics are pushing back. Jordan Peterson, Jonathon Haidt and Steven Pinker are but a handful of high-profile professors leading the charge. Jonathon Haidt, one of the most respected academics in the country, was instrumental in establishing the Heterodox Academy: A 2,000+ group of professors (of diverse political leanings) who are attempting to turn back the tide. And, as might be expected, this has subjected these otherwise unremarkable and non-provocative individuals to a host of ad hominem attacks (if Jordan Peterson is "alt-right" ... then I'm William Shakespeare).
The prospective solution ... is also what's enabling the problem: The Silent Majority and their pacificity. We're busy and don't have time for this nonsense. Winston Churchill once said (the origin of the quote is disputed but play along), "People get the government they deserve." That sentiment, I think, can be extended to society-at-large.
Words are the containers of ideas. When extremists (either on the Left or the Right) control language, then they control the underlying ideas upon which our society is constructed ... and the rules to which we must comply. I, for one, would like to maintain the freedom to speak as I believe, while engaging those that do the same.
On A Personal Note
In a couple of weeks, my daughter will finish Grade 11. A year later, she'll be off to college. She has the grades to go anywhere. But, as her father, where should I advise her to go? I want her to be able to exercise her mind. To be exposed to ideas of all kinds: The good, the bad and the ugly. I want her to have to defend her beliefs ... against those capable of causing her to have to defend ... for steel sharpens steel. She's ready, willing and able. She is her father's daughter, she loves to learn. She is excited.
I ... am concerned.
In the military, I learned about (and was subjected to) the "brainwashing techniques" employed in POW camps in order to "break and re-educate POW's" for propaganda purposes. I was astonished (and dismayed) to learn that many of the same techniques are being applied to in-coming freshmen (albeit less heavy-handedly). "Social Justice" indoctrination may sound innocuous, but it is as pernicious as it gets.
It is the formation of In-Group/Out-Group dichotomy (us vs. them). It is the instillation of Right-Think and Wrong-Think. It is the censorship (and self-censorship) of contrary ideas, ideals and insights. It is the elevation of ideological assertion over evidence-based argument, of feelings over observable facts. It is the redefinition of what constitutes a belief being "True or False." It is the acceptance of a worldview that dictates that everyone is either "an Oppressor" or "the Oppressed" based entirely upon characteristics beyond their respective controls.
Everyone has a Line of Incredulity beyond which the only appropriate response to hyperbolic truth-claims, is derision. If I, for example, self-identified as the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte, most of you (I hope) would not feel obligated to start addressing me as, "Mon General." Where does this end? When do we again start demanding evidence? A testable hypothesis? Or, at least, that truth-claims not fly in the face of a mountain of contradictory scientific evidence ... and the evidence of our eyes? My Line of Incredulity got crossed about a mile back.
Where's yours?
Let me know what you think in the Comments below.
Paul
@cryptogee @old-guy-photos @c0ff33a @deranged-visions @d-pend @kenny-crane @ecoinstant @girlbeforemirror @angelveselinov @prydefoltz @lymepoet
