THE MANTRA OF LIBERAL HIGHER EDUCATION:
“We welcome any thought or idea, so long as it is entirely consistent with our own.”
Michael Schoenfeld, Duke’s vice president for public affairs, said that Professor Jerry Hough’s words were “noxious, offensive, and have no place in civil discourse.” Duke’s official rebuke of its own professor implies that something, which is “noxious” and “offensive” cannot have a place in “civil discourse.”
Ammonia is the epitome of a “noxious” substance. If misused, the substance can be explosive, and in high concentrations, it is deadly. However, Ammonia’s utility as a cleaner, fertilizer, and refrigerant can outweigh its “offense” to the olfactory senses and can justify exposure to its potential dangers. The overriding issue is not whether something is capable of creating offense but whether, on the whole, the expected benefits outweigh the likely detriments.
Some words have the power to effect change specifically because they are “noxious” to one’s self-perception or “offensive” to one’s sense of comfort. Words sometimes have to be sharp and stinging in order to scrape away the barnacles of time or the callouses of ignorance or complacency. Censoring sincere and reasoned discourse, even if the resulting debate gives discomfort and results in passionate disagreements, is entirely contrary to effective communication and inconsistent with the resolution of competing concepts and ideas.
One receives little benefit from only preaching to the choir. The speaker is often tone deaf as a result of the applause, accolades, and enthusiastic “Amens” from his preferred audience. The true test of the message and the measure of its benefit comes from the ability to “convert” the blasphemer, heathen, and infidel.
Political Correctness, as applied to the issues of Social Justice and relating to matters of class and/or race, requires adoption of a narrative that proceeds thusly:
The “System” (as if it were a concrete mechanism with a clearly identified architect, operator, and output) is intentionally skewed in favor of one or more privileged individuals, groups, or classes, and those not so privileged are entitled, if not obliged, to remake the system and not just to make it objectively “fair” or “equitable” but to slant it in their own favor.
The much touted and often sought “equality” means either guaranteed equality of outcomes, which is impossible, or equal time having access to power, which inevitably leads to retaliatory abuses (i.e. retribution and vengeance). The latter use promotes repeating cycles of abuses among competing interest groups with increasingly large ebbs and flows until the “system” itself collapses from the stress and strain.
Throw in any number of groups or classes, which are clambering concurrently to hold the reins of government power, and the U.S. Motto, “E Pluribus Unum” [“Out of Many, One”], quickly loses all meaning and effect. Rather than assimilation and cooperation in furtherance of a common good, the society devolves into a collection of tribes, with constant warfare being the norm. Rather than benefiting from concerted efforts and economies of scale, all parties are more concerned internally with defense of person and property and externally with raids upon that which is coveted from others.
In defense of this free-for-all, there is a misguided belief in diversity for the sake of diversity. There is a belief that all ideas and peoples are inherently equal simply because they exist. This is taken as an objective fact, and no subjective analysis can ever enter into the analysis. No issue is ever “settled,” and no truth can ever be established as “right” so long as there is any detractor (whose opinion is consistent with the established liberal narrative).
The wisdom of the ages is ignored to be replaced by rehashing of ineffective policies, repetition of destructive histories, and recycling of failed philosophies. Capitalism, upon whose foundation the U.S. and world economies have flourished. is deemed an inherent “evil,” which must be manipulated and molded to reflect more egalitarian concepts of Socialism. Need we also revisit the political models, which offer alternatives to our Constitutional Republic: Monarchies, Dictatorships, Fascism, Nazism, Communism?
Each individual and generation is seemingly burdened with “reinventing the wheel.” It is as though society is allowed no institutional knowledge. We cannot learn from our past societal mistakes; we can only relive them. There seemingly can be no benefit attributed to cultural norms and societal constructs, unless these things further misguided concepts of Social Justice.
Professor Hough, a man of 80 years and a Political Science instructor at one of Americas’ most prestigious universities, offered a learned opinion about the societal benefits of cultural assimilation. He also placed great emphasis on the individual’s ability to rise above his or her situation rather than propounding excuses tied to an us-versus-the-system dichotomy. Neither the productivity of communication nor the advancement of thought can be accomplished by pussyfooting around difficult issues or through vain attempts at appeasing the unappeasable. Regardless, the contribution of Mr. Hough can hardly be said to “have no place in civil discourse.” If that were true, discourse would be exceedingly limited and effective discourse would be non-existent.
[NOTE: Originally written May 19, 2015.]
