Foreign affairs will likely ask for your email address to which they send a link. Follow the link to the complete article.
The NPR show On Point has a great interview with the authors, broadcast 6 May 2024. Link to On Point podcast page. Then scroll down to find the show. The podcast blurb: The Russia-Ukraine war has lasted over two years. But just weeks after Russia’s 2022 invasion, both sides came close to a settlement that could have ended the war and saved thousands of lives. What happened? About: On Point is WBUR’s award-winning, daily public radio show and podcast. Every weekday, host Meghna Chakrabarti leads provocative conversations that help make sense of the world.
On Point comes from radio station WBUR, which has an article about the conversation. [It looks like a transcription of the podcast.] It also contains several links, including to the Foreign Affairs article. The story behind 2022’s secret Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations 6 May 2024
Following are a few non-consecutive excerpts from early in the Foreign Affairs article:
What did the Russians want to accomplish by invading Ukraine? On February 24, 2022, Putin gave a speech in which he justified the invasion by mentioning the vague goal of “denazification” of the country. The most reasonable interpretation of “denazification” was that Putin sought to topple the government in Kyiv, possibly killing or capturing Zelensky in the process.
Yet days after the invasion began, Moscow began probing to find grounds for a compromise. A war Putin expected to be a cakewalk was already proving anything but, and this early openness to talking suggests he appears to have already abandoned the idea of outright regime change.
At the first meeting, the Russians presented a set of harsh conditions, effectively demanding Ukraine’s capitulation. This was a nonstarter. But as Moscow’s position on the battlefield continued to deteriorate, its positions at the negotiating table became less demanding.
Ukraine’s demand not to be left to fend for itself again is completely understandable. Kyiv wanted (and still wants) to have a more reliable mechanism than Russia’s goodwill for its future security. But getting a guarantee would be difficult.
To put a finer point on it: if the United States and its allies were unwilling to provide Ukraine such guarantees (for example, in the form of NATO membership) before the war, why would they do so after Russia had so vividly demonstrated its willingness to attack Ukraine? The Ukrainian negotiators developed an answer to this question, but in the end, it didn’t persuade their risk-averse Western colleagues. Kyiv’s position was that, as the emerging guarantees concept implied, Russia would be a guarantor, too, which would mean Moscow essentially agreed that the other guarantors would be obliged to intervene if it attacked again. In other words, if Moscow accepted that any future aggression against Ukraine would mean a war between Russia and the United States, it would be no more inclined to attack Ukraine again than it would be to attack a NATO ally.
The treaty envisioned in the communiqué would proclaim Ukraine as a permanently neutral, nonnuclear state. Ukraine would renounce any intention to join military alliances or allow foreign military bases or troops on its soil. The communiqué listed as possible guarantors the permanent members of the UN Security Council (including Russia) along with Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, Poland, and Turkey.
Although Ukraine would be permanently neutral under the proposed framework, Kyiv’s path to EU membership would be left open, and the guarantor states (including Russia) would explicitly “confirm their intention to facilitate Ukraine’s membership in the European Union.” This was nothing short of extraordinary…
The communiqué also includes another provision that is stunning, in retrospect: it calls for the two sides to seek to peacefully resolve their dispute over Crimea during the next ten to 15 years.
From close to the end of the article:
This history suggests that future talks should move forward on parallel tracks, with the practicalities of ending the war being addressed on one track while broader issues are covered in another.
In reality, however, the Russians and the Ukrainians never arrived at a final compromise text. But they went further in that direction than has been previously understood, reaching an overarching framework for a possible agreement.
Jerry Coyne pulled together links to four articles (published April 19-21, 2024) by Seth Mandel, Bari Weiss, Jonathan Lederer and Sahar Tartak. All are short. Follow the link below to his blog posting:
A few ever-more popular chants on American campuses:
Their god is CAPITAL and God is our Witness.” [a sign in a Chicago protest referring to the supposed money-grubbing of Jews]
“Never forget the 7th of October”. “That will happen not one more time, not five more times, not 10 more times, not 100 more times, not 1,000 more times, not 10,000. . . The 7th of October is going to be every day for you.” [yelled to Jews at Columbia]
“Iran you make us proud.”
“Yemen, Yemen, make us proud; turn another ship around!”
“Resistance by any means necessary!”
“Go back to Poland” [shouted to Jews at Columbia]
“Uncultured a** b****es, go back to Europe. You have no culture. All you do is colonize.”
“Zionism will fall, brick by brick, wall by wall, Israel will fall”. . . . “US imperialists, number one terrorists.”
“Say it loud and say it clear, we don’t want no Zionists here.”
Fuck Israel, Israel a bitch / Bitch we out here mobbin’ on some Palestine shit / Free Palestine bitch, Israel gon’ die bitch / Nigga it’s they land why you out here tryna rob it / Bullshit prophets, y’all just want the profit [“blasted at Yale” as recounted by Sahar Tartak]
“We say justice, you say how? Burn Tel Aviv to the ground.”
“Hamas we love you. We support your rockets, too.”
“Al-Qassam make us proud, kill another soldier now.” [Al-Qassam is the military arm of Hams, and the soldiers refer to the IDF]
“There is no god but Allah, and the martyr is Allah’s beloved!”
In Ottawa, Canada: “October 7th Proves We’re Almost Free!”. The crowd goes wild. “Long live October 7th!”
A few comments:
“…for the anti-American and anti-Israel demonstrators on college campuses and all around the country, war is all they desire.”
“The students who support terror have given in to madness. Refusing to condemn them is madness.”
“I was stabbed in the eye [by a flagpole bearing a Palestinian flag] last night on Yale University’s campus because I am a Jew.”
These campus campaigns carry the signs that they are well-funded. For example, all the student protesters tents at Colombia were the same. Read the articles and Jerry’s comments in his blog.
We briefly met Jonathan Haidt in my two previous postings (part 1 and part 2) on the new book The Cancelling of the American Mind. With Greg Lukianoff, Jon co-wrote their 2015 landmark article in The Atlantic, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” and the 2018 book by the same name. Jon also wrote the forward to Lukianoff & Schlott’s 2023 follow-up book The Canceling of the American Mind.
Here is Jon speaking for himself in the Hayek Lecture Series at Duke University. This was recorded in October 2016, between the publishing of the article in The Atlantic and the publishing of the 2018 book.
From the blurb accompanying the video.
753,690 views Oct 15, 2016 Hayek Lecture Series On October 6, 2016, Professor Jonathan Haidt gave a Hayek Lecture at Duke. The event was co-sponsored by the programs in the History of Political Economy (HOPE), Philosophy, Politics, & Economics (PPE), and American Values and Institutions (AVI). The event was open to the public, but also served as a guest lecture in Professor Jonathan Anomaly’s PPE course. Professor Haidt argues that conflicts arise at many American universities today because they are pursuing two potentially incompatible goals: truth and social justice. While Haidt thinks both goals are important, he maintains that they can come into conflict. According to some versions of social justice, whenever we observe a disparity of outcomes between races, genders, or other groups, we should infer that injustice has been done. Haidt challenges this view of social justice and shows how it sometimes leads to violations of truth, and even justice. Haidt concludes that universities should be free to pursue whatever goals – truth or social justice – they want, but that they should make it clear which of these two goals is their “telos” – their highest purpose. He ends with a discussion of his initiative, HeterodoxAcademy.org, to bring more viewpoint diversity to universities in order to improve research and learning. Produced by Shaun King, Duke University Department of Political Science Multimedia Specialist
A “galvanizing” (The Wall Street Journal) deep dive into cancel culture and its dangers to all Americans from the team that brought you Coddling of the American Mind. (Publisher’s link)
The Canceling of the American Mind: Cancel Culture Undermines Trust and Threatens Us All – But There Is a Solution Greg Lukianoff & Rikki Schlott Simon & Schuster, New York | October 2023 | 307 pgs text, plus foreword, appendices, notes & index
The prior posting looked at the eleven case studies presented in “The Canceling of the American Mind,” most extensively on the debacle at Hamline University and very briefly on the other ten. This posting looks at several categorical sets presented in the book, beginning with the three foundational errors of Cancel Culture (the “Great Untruths“), then the Perfect Rhetorical Fortress of the Left, the Efficient Rhetorical Fortress of the Right, and finishing with what we need to do to bring Cancel Culture to an end.
The Three Great Untruths
These three untruths were originally presented in Lukianoff & Haidt’s “The Coddling of the American Mind” in 2015. As Jonathan Haidt writes in his foreword to “The Canceling of the American Mind,” these are:
…ideas so bad, so wrong, so contrary to ancient wisdom and modern psychology that if any young person embraces all three, they are practically guaranteed to be unhappy and unsuccessful….[in the years] since the book was published the disease has metastasized and spread far beyond universities. It now infects journalism, the arts, nonprofits, K-12 education, and even medicine. Show me an organization where people are afraid to speak up, afraid to challenge dominant ideas lest they be destroyed socially, and I’ll show you an organization that has become structurally stupid, unmoored from reality, and unable to achieve its mission.
The Canceling of the American Mind: Forward, pgs. xi-xiii
1. The Untruth of Fragility: What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker.
This is the opposite of “anti-fragility” or resilience. There are things that absolutely must have challenges, shocks and setbacks in order to develop properly. When children are shielded from all dirt, germs & viruses, their immune system cannot develop properly and they’ll likely suffer from auto-immune diseases. Shield them from risk, teasing and exclusion and you block their development of normal social and emotional skills and condemn them to anxiety and social incompetence.
2. The Untruth of Emotional Reasoning: Always trust your feelings.
This is the opposite of Stoicism, Buddhism and other ancient traditions that teach that our emotions and automatic reactions are often wrong, lead us astray and perpetuate our own ignorance. They should be examined and questioned, not held out as inarguable truths. Your anger or fear is yours alone, possibly completely self-generated without reference to outside reality, and certainly not necessarily the result of the behavior or intention of others.
3. The Untruth of Us versus Them: Life is a battle between good people and bad people.
This is the most destructive of the Great Untruths, the root of almost all conflict between peoples, the dark side of “groupism” or tribalism which has the beneficial quality of supporting our survival and success. Ancient wisdom warns us that we are all hypocrites, ignorant, fallen; we should remove the plank from our own eye before trying to pluck the mote from the eye of another. We, the flawed, should be quick to forgive, and by the measure we forgive we may in turn be forgiven by others. Teaching that some groups are irrevocably bad and other unquestionably good is exactly the worst policy.
The Perfect Rhetorical Fortress of the Left
Over several decades as many in academia fell under the spell of Cancel Culture, the rules below evolved. Now, inside the walls of the left wing’s Perfect Rhetorical Fortress:
“…lie layer after layer of argumentative dodges, ad hominem diversions, and rhetorical defenses that protect those inside from ever having to address the substance of their opponent’s arguments….using its full power allows you to divert or derail any possible debate. The key factor that makes these dodges so effective is optionality: you are never obligated to use them. You can apply the barricades to dismiss arguments, while letting other people just waltz through.”
The Canceling of the American Mind: Forward, pg. 115
The following ‘barricades’ are the authors’. I’ve considerably shortened their descriptions and discussions which covers pages 116-129.
Barricade 1: Is the Speaker Conservative?
If yes, they can immediately be dismissed, no additional questions or permission to speak is necessary. This covers at minimum the 36% of Americans self-described as conservatives. It’s also liberally applied to any liberal or leftist who dares to criticize anything about Cancel Culture: Noam Chomsky, Gloria Steinem, Salman Rushdie, J.K. Rowling and Steven Pinker are among the many on the left who have been viciously attacked.
Barricade 2: What’s the Speaker’s Race?
Racism has been redefined to apply only to dominant racial groups. Members of minorities cannot be racist by the new definition because they do not have “institutional power.” You are permitted, even encouraged to generalize about dominant racial groups (primarily White, European or Asian, including Jewish) all you want. Whites are considered automatically racist; if they deny it, they are considered even more racist and are demonstrating ‘White Fragility.’ This barricade eliminates 59% of the population; 76% if you include Hispanics who consider themselves white.
Barricade 3: What’s the Speaker’s Sex?
Any argument by a male can be dismissed as “mansplaining.” This originally referred to a man lecturing a woman on her field of expertise as if she knew nothing about it. In recent years it has become generalized to shut down any comment from any man saying anything on any subject, while assuming that a woman will automatically know more about certain topics whether she’s studied them or not – Title IX for example – simply because they’re a woman. With this you can knock out slightly less than 50% of all Americans.
Barricade 4: What’s the Speaker’s Sexuality?
“Straights” are now purported to benefit from “heterosexual privilege” – “unearned, often unconscious or taken for granted benefits afforded to heterosexuals in a heterosexist society based on their sexual orientation.” As such, they are privileged and biased, thus they cannot know what they are talking about, so you can safely ignore everything they say. As only 3-5% of the male population is bisexual or gay, that means you can ignore or shout down 95-97% of men. When we layer these categories with others like politics or race, where do we now stand? 93% of the population is heterosexual or conservative. 98% is heterosexual or white. 98.9% is heterosexual or non-black; 99.1% is heterosexual, non-black or conservative. That leaves only 0.9% capable of saying something worth hearing.
Barricade 5: Is the Speaker’s Trans or Cis?
About 98.4% of the U.S. adult population is “cisgender” or just “Cis,” meaning: if you were born male (produce small motile gametes [sperm]) and you agree that you are indeed male; if you were born female (produce large non-motile gametes [eggs]) and you agree that you are indeed female. If you are “Cis” you have nothing worth saying, unless it replicates whatever the non-cis say. But if you are non-cis and utter a “wrong opinion” (i.e. cis-like), you can still be ignored and canceled.
Barricade 6: Can the speaker be accused of being “phobic”?
Even if you’ve made it past the previous hurdles, if you can be accused of any –ism (racism, sexism) or –phobia (transphobic, Islamophobic), then you cannot be permitted to express an opinion. You are suffering from ‘internalized (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.).’ Anything you might say is likely to be dangerous and harmful to someone, somewhere, some time, now or in the unforeseeable future.
Barricade 7: Are they guilty by Association?
If you associate with anyone who doesn’t pass the above tests or is otherwise “beyond the pale,” you are equally guilty by reason of such association. Bad people, and all those who associate with them, can have only bad opinions. Lukianoff and Schlott were deemed guilty by association to Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson (who is loathed by the Cancelers) because Peterson wrote a foreword to a recent edition of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago and the authors once quoted from that book. Such an association, however remote, cannot be forgiven.
Barricade 8: Did the Speaker Lose Their Cool?
Don’t get angry no matter how crazy the Politically Correct rules get, how persistent the screams and shout-downs, how unfair or untrue the accusations. If the Cancelers scream, that’s fine, because they’ve been made to feel unsafe or hurt. The feelings of the canceled or about-to-be-canceled are merely their innate racism or phobias coming to the surface, therefore unworthy of respect.
Barricade 9: Did the Speaker Violate a “Thought Terminating Cliché”?
These are overused terms intended to shut down discussion: “dog-whistle,” “on the wrong side of history,” “right-wing talking points,” “punching-down,” “white tears,” “stay in your lane,” “do your own work” (i.e. I will not explain to you what I think you should already know).
Barricade 10: Can you emotionally blackmail someone?
When all else fails, you can get what you want through sadness and outrage, using claims of “harm,” “unsafe,” “disrespected”, “lack of belonging,” “un-valued,” and other purported trauma caused by your intransigence, -phobia, -ism, or privilege. This is similar to the 4-year-old’s wail that “if you loved me, you’d…(fill in the blank).”
Barricade 11: Darkly Hint Something Else is What’s Really Going On
When you’re losing the argument due to lack of facts, allude darkly that something other the current issue is the real problem. “This is really all about some other bad thing (e.g. too much white cisgender privilege, someone used the N-word), that’s why I’m right even if everything else I said was wrong.”
This rhetorical fortress is truly perfect. Anything anyone says about anything can be immediately dismissed without engaging in rational discussion, an act which cancelers will not do. All the above barricades are variations on the basic ad hominem (“to the man” personal attack, recognized for millennia as an illegitimate argument.
The Efficient Rhetorical Fortress of the Right
These are the special tactics of the political Right. These are termed efficient because – unlike the convoluted and numerous barricades of the left’s Perfect Rhetorical Fortress – in one fell swoop they get rid of so many viewpoints with three simple rules, discussed on pages 163-175.
1. You don’t have to listen to liberals (and anyone can be labeled “liberal” if they have the “wrong” opinion).
2. You don’t have to listen to experts (even conservative experts, if they have the “wrong” opinion).
3. You don’t have to listen to journalists (even conservative journalists if they have the “wrong” opinion).
4. And, among the MAGA wing, there’s a fourth provision: You don’t need to listen to anyone who isn’t pro-Trump.
These are simpler than the left’s rules – therefore they are the “efficient” fortress – because they arose not from college dorm rooms and academic departments where layer upon layer of rhetorical dodges were added on, but from everyday politics and talk radio. They are rooted in the Right’s growing distrust of authority, which to some extent is well earned. This was exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, when unearned and/or unsupported certainty came from many scholars and experts, usually parroted by journalists. Rather than look at each statement, they just shut them down with their own blanket “expertise” – all liberals, “experts” and journalists, are wrong, whatever they say, because they’re liberals, experts or journalists.
What Can We Do About Cancel Culture
The final third of the book, pgs. 211-307, is an extensive discussion of what can be done to counteract our Cancel Culture.
1. Raise Kids who are not Cancelers
Revive the golden rule; Encourage free, unstructured time; Emphasize the importance of friendships; Teach kids about differences; Practice what you preach. Should anyone, including you, be forever judged by the worst, dumbest thing you ever did? Aren’t we all much more than that?
2. Keep Your Corporation Out of the Culture War
Hire more broadly; Define what you stand for; Face problems in small groups; Practice what you preach. Management is not there to resolve all employee personal and interpersonal conflicts. The company need not reflect employee personal values and politics. A business is not a school campus. Diversity is of more than race or religion; it is of politics, opinion, philosophy, backgrounds, ages, educational levels. Tell employees if they’re so offended they cannot do their jobs, perhaps they don’t belong there.
3. Fixing Kindergarten through High School
Start seeing kids as unique, intellectually independent individuals; Emphasize curiosity and critical thinking; Foster anti-fragility and emotional well-being. Avoid these three common unhelpful lessons: the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy, trigger warnings, automatic punishment for a bad joke or faux pas. Rebuild from the ground up by considering expanded use of: school vouchers, parental involvement on spending their own tax dollars, Montessori or Reggio Emilia style teaching, unschooling, vocational trade-oriented teaching, home-schooling, the Khan Academy.
4. Reforming Higher Education
As higher education is the home ground for Cancel Culture, big changes are needed here. Alumni should emphasize need for free speech & academic freedom before donating; Ban Political Litmus Tests; Abstain from taking political stances; Install an academic freedom ombudsman; Reduce bureaucracy; Demand results; Stop requiring college degrees for work where a college education is not required; Create new systems such as micro-credentialing, small-scale educational pods, self-study equivalency tests.
5. Reinvigorate free speech culture, not merely free speech laws. Good free speech laws plus bad free speech culture will not lead to free speech in practice. We must be highly tolerant of difference: “It’s a free country,” “Sticks and stones…”, “address arguments, not the person,” “who am I to judge?”
A “galvanizing” (The Wall Street Journal) deep dive into cancel culture and its dangers to all Americans from the team that brought you Coddling of the American Mind. (Publisher’s link)
In September, 2015, The Atlanticpublished an article by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt: “The Coddling of the American Mind.” It’s first six sentences:
Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense. Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress. In February, Laura Kipnis, a professor at Northwestern University, wrote an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education describing a new campus politics of sexual paranoia—and was then subjected to a long investigation after students who were offended by the article and by a tweet she’d sent filed Title IX complaints against her. In June, a professor protecting himself with a pseudonym wrote an essay for Vox describing how gingerly he now has to teach. “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me,” the headline said.
The article was a bombshell. In 2018 the pair expanded the article into a book: “The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure.” It quickly became a bestseller, the Bloomberg Best Book of 2018 and a finalist for the 2018 National Book Critics Circle Award in Nonfiction.
The Canceling of the American Mind: Cancel Culture Undermines Trust and Threatens Us All – But There Is a Solution Greg Lukianoff & Rikki Schlott Simon & Schuster, New York | October 2023 | 307 pgs text, plus foreword, appendices, notes & index
Now, with new writing partner Rikki Schlott and a foreword by his former writing partner Jonathan Haidt, Lukianoff has an excellent followup: “The Canceling of the American Mind: Cancel Culture Undermines Trust and Threatens Us All – But There Is a Solution.” [Link to publisher]
There are many interviews and YouTube videos concerning this book and it’s authors. Most of them are quite long – 50 to 100 minutes. The one below is extremely short as Greg Lukianoff merely defines what he means by Cancel Culture, a term the authors dislike but use because everyone has heard it.
Here’s seven very short videos from F.I.R.E. (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression).
I found this a very interesting and worthwhile book and recommend to everyone. The less you know of or the more approving you are of what has come to be called “Cancel Culture,” “Social Justice Missionaries,” “Critical Racism Theorists,” “Decolonization Protesters,” “Transexual Advocates,” the recent anti-Semitic fervor of the “progressive left” or the “Woke,” the more you need to read this book. There is much you have not, as yet, heard. Lucianoff and Schlott present it in a very readable, detailed and fascinating manner.
About one third of the book consists of eleven “Case Studies,” scattered throughout the book. Rather than go into greater detail of the material or a broad review of it, I’m going to lift the first case study from the book, followed by short paragraphs on the remaining ten studies. If this doesn’t make you want to find out more, nothing will.
Case Study #1: Hamline University & “Islamophobia”
“I consider this a form of ideological colonization, one that leaves no room for freedom of expression and is now taking the form of the ‘cancel culture’ invading many circles and public institutions. Under the guise of defending diversity, it ends up canceling all sense of identity, with the risk of silencing positions.” — Pope Francis
On October 6, 2022, an adjunct professor at Hamline University in Saint Paul, Minnesota, became the target of one of the most brazen infringements on academic freedom in recent memory. Erika López Prater showed her art history class a painting depicting the Prophet Mohammed—and lost her job because of it.
The Prophet Mohammad Receiving Revelation from the Angel Gabriel was commissioned by a Muslim king in honor of his faith in the fourteenth century and painted by a fellow Muslim. Professor López Prater knew depictions of the prophet are considered sacrilegious by some Muslims, and so she took great care to give students an adequate heads-up.
She warned about the painting in her syllabus, offering students an option to view alternative works of art. She added, “If you have any questions or concerns about either missing for a religious observance or the visual content that will be presented, please do not hesitate to contact me.” López Prater also told students during the class that they would soon be seeing the painting and that it was okay if anyone wished to leave before that.
López Prater explained the rationale behind featuring the artwork in her curriculum: “I am showing you this image for a reason. There is this common thinking that Islam completely forbids, outright, any figurative depictions or any depictions of holy personages. While many Islamic cultures do strongly frown on this practice, I would like to remind you there is no one, monolithic Islamic culture.”
No students contacted her for an exemption from the assignment. But after the class was over, one student objected to seeing the image—and made it known to both her professor and the entire Hamline community.
Aram Wedatalla, a twenty-three-year-old senior and president of the Muslim Student Association, complained. She held a de-facto press conference in which she cried and declared, “I am 23 years old. I have never once seen an image of the Prophet. It just breaks my heart that I have to stand here to tell people that something is Islamophobic and something actually hurts all of us, not only me.”
Wedatalla also told the school newspaper, the Hamline Oracle, “I’m like, ‘this can’t be real.’ As a Muslim, and a Black person, I don’t feel like I belong, and I don’t think I’ll ever belong in a community where they don’t value me as a member, and they don’t show the same respect that I show them.”
Another member of the Muslim Student Association, senior Deangela Huddleston, added, “Hamline teaches us it doesn’t matter the intent, the impact is what matters.”
But it wasn’t the student outrage that foisted the tiny Methodist School in St. Paul, Minnesota, into the national spotlight. That was thanks to the administrators’ response.
Despite publicly claiming the school “embraces the examination of all ideas, some of which will potentially be unpopular and unsettling, as an integral and robust component of intellectual inquiry,” Hamline came for López Prater.
The school rescinded her job offer to teach the following semester. David Everett, associate vice president of inclusive excellence, told the student newspaper, that because “of this incident, it was decided it was best that this faculty member was no longer part of the Hamline community.” Everett also sent a letter to all Hamline staff accusing López Prater of engaging in “undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic” speech. Meanwhile, the dean of students initiated a campaign to stop perceived anti-Muslim actions at their source, outlining a plan to address Islamophobia by scheduling forums and unleashing a reporting form for community members to report transgressions.
University president Fayneese Miller got involved, too. In a December email she co-authored with Everett, the two urged community members to “listen rather than debate the merits of or extent of [the] harm” and declared that “respect for the observant Muslim students in that classroom should have superseded academic freedom.”
The following month, Miller released a statement in which she complained that the media was misreporting about the issue and that López Prater was not fired for exercising her academic freedom, but rather was simply not rehired for exercising her academic freedom.
“Academic freedom does not operate in a vacuum. It is subject to the dictates of society,” Miller wrote. “Does the claim that academic freedom is sacrosanct, and owes no debt to the traditions, beliefs, and views of students, comprise a privileged fraction?”
This is a deeply flawed notion. As FIRE [Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression] attorney Adam Steinbaugh pointed out, “Far from being subordinate to ‘the dictates of society,’ academic freedom is a bulwark against society’s ‘dictates.’ It is intended to give faculty breathing room to explore ideas and materials others think should not be aired….If a professor’s expression is popular with society, she wouldn’t need the shield of academic freedom.” [Emphases are in original.]
Less than a week later, López Prater sued the school. Only then did Hamline begin to recant.
In a follow-up statement, the board of trustees said the whole ordeal was a “misstep” and admitted their “usage of the term ‘Islamophobic’ was…flawed.” They added, “It was never our intent to suggest that academic freedom is of lower concern or value than our students—care does not ‘supersede’ academic freedom, the two coexist.”
This is a prime example of the Perfect Rhetorical Fortress, the left’s extensive set of rhetorical barricades designed to dodge meaningful conversation, which we explore in Part Two of the book. We will explain these barricades further in the pages to come, but in this case those coming for the professor…
Claimed “offense to Islam” was grounds to get someone fired, even though many in the Muslim community disagreed that showing the picture in an art history class was offensive
Overconfidently and vaguely claimed to have experienced psychological harm
Used “thought-terminating clichés” to justify the action. For example, one professor who supported Hamline’s decision to cut ties with López Prater called showing the art “punching down ” and claimed this was “professor-splaining.”
Held a forum that was presented as a discussion of the incident but really was an attempt to browbeat the community and justify the cancellation. Later in the book we dub this “emotional blackmailing.”
Insinuated that “really this case is about some other terrible thing we can’t prove.” Here, cancelers argued that showing the painting was just a symptom of an alleged general anti-Islamic atmosphere at Hamline.
Although López Prater has yet to be reinstated as of this writing, we are pleased to report that the Hamline disaster inspired unusually widespread condemnation. FIRE launched a determined campaign to call out the school and organize professors to join an open letter in defense of López Prater.
Not only did the ordeal sustain headlines for weeks, but it was also dubbed “one of the most egregious violations of academic freedom in recent memory” by PEN America. The American Association of University Professors responded by calling the situation “a remarkable violation of academic freedom.”
Some of Hamline’s own professors—in a 71-12 vote of the faculty board—even called on university president Fayneese Miller to step down, which she ultimately did. They wrote a joint statement that powerfully asserted, “We affirm both academic freedom and our responsibility to foster an inclusive learning community. Importantly, these values neither contradict nor supersede each other.”
The Muslim Public Affairs Council affirmed “the painting was not Islamophobic” and “[urged] the university to reverse its decision.” They added, “On the basis of our shared Islamic and universal values, we affirm the need to instill a spirit of free inquiry, critical thinking, and viewpoint diversity.”
The debacle at Hamline is a perfect example of just how out of hand Cancel Culture has gotten on university campuses.
While many academic freedom scandals go under-reported or become partisan in their coverage, the widespread backlash against the debacle at Hamline is a glimmer of hope. This has fed a sense that Cancel Culture might be starting to break. But it’s far too early to declare Cancel Culture over.
Since cancellations exploded on campuses around 2014, they have ebbed and flowed. During the lows, many have been too eager to declare it through—but every time, Cancel Culture has come back stronger than ever. We can’t just wish it away. Instead, we have to establish the Free Speech Culture that will short circuit Cancel Culture.
In the final chapter you’ll hear a lot about Free Speech Culture—the antidote to Cancel Culture that we think our society needs to move toward.
In the meantime, you should know that Free Speech Culture is a set of cultural norms rooted in older democratic values. Embracing Free Speech Culture means turning back to once popular sayings like “everyone is entitled to their own opinion,” “to each their own,” “it’s a free country,” and even “don’t judge a book by its cover.”
And Free Speech Culture embraces some new idioms, too, such as “always take seriously the possibility you might be wrong,” “it’s always important to know what people really think,” and “just because you hate someone doesn’t mean they are wrong.
Fully one-third of the book consists of specific case studies such as the Hamlin College case. They make very interesting–and irritating–reading. Below are very brief descriptions of important elements of the other ten case studies.
Case Study #2: Invasion of Professor’s Private Email
At University of North Carolina–Wilmington, a professor – former liberal atheist, now conservative Christian – found his private email examined by the school at the request of a student who was instigating frivolous claims of intimidation and defamation against the professor. The claims were thrown out but the school’s invasion of his private email continued. The professor sued the school for refusing him tenure, won the case, then won again on appeal. Fourteen years later he was forced into early retirement for tweeting about unnecessary Covid-19 lockdowns and their similarity to slavery, a comparison for which he was mercilessly attacked by protesters, for nothing must ever be compared to slavery.
Case Study #3: Covid-19 School Lockdowns
The president of Levi Strauss & Co., an advocate for children’s rights for decades, tweeted that school lockdowns during Covid-19 were unnecessary, harmed the disadvantaged kids the most as well as those least at risk, an opinion many others expressed at the time. After she was called a racist, eugenicist and QAnon conspiracist, Levi Strauss urged that she take an “apology tour,” after which protestors called for boycotts. Levi Strauss then offered her a $1 million dollar severance package in exchange for her nondisclosure agreement. She refused to sign and quit, forfeiting her CEO-track career.
Case Study #4: Senator Tom Cotton’s New York Times Op-Ed
In June 2020, after the New York Times printed Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton’s op-ed advocating using military force to quell civil unrest following the death of George Floyd, the piece was criticized as fascist and unconstitutional. Even NYT employees tweeted that it “puts Black@NYT staff in danger,” later adding that it made readers “vulnerable to harm” and “[jeopardized] reporter’s ability to work safely and effectively.” Despite his writing that he disagreed with Cotton’s position, editorial page editor James Bennet argued that Cotton, a person of significance, deserved to be heard. That persuaded no one, and Bennet – despite additional arguments and apologies – was forced to resign, while his deputy opinion editor was internally reassigned. Years later, Bennet comments included: “my colleagues treated me like an incompetent fascist….my mistake there was trying to mollify people…[the NYT] set me on fire and threw me in the garbage…”
Case Study #5: The Fortress in Action: Stanford Law School
When federal appeals court judge Kyle Duncan came to speak to Stanford Law School’s chapter of the Federalist Society, school administrators agreed they would give any protestors one warning and then have them removed. When protestors showed up, not only did administrators fail to warn and remove them, some joined the protest. The room was plastered with fliers, protesters screamed, heckled, waved signs, then shouted over the judge when he tried to speak. The school dean even gave a time-consuming speech, declaring that Duncan was to blame for tearing the Stanford community apart, despite the fact that he had been invited to speak by Stanford law students.
Case Study #6: Campus Cancel Culture from the Right
At Babson College in January 2020, a professor posted a satirical tweet suggesting that Iranian Ayatollah Khomenei issue a list of 52 “sites of beloved American cultural heritage” – including the Kardashian residence – which he would target in response to President Trump’s threat to bomb 52 Iranian sites. People took it seriously, and the political Right piled on, demanding his firing. After what Babson College described as a “thorough investigation” of one entire day and claiming police cooperation, he was fired for his satirical tweet. Later investigation revealed there was no police assistance in the college’s “investigation.” Over a dozen other similar cases are briefly discussed.
Case Study #7: Psychotherapy
Psychotherapy students are advised that if a patient expresses views with which the therapist disagrees, they should interrupt the session to ‘correct’ and ‘educate’ the client. Therapists are increasingly taught to view their clients ‘through a lens of personal privilege and group identity.’
Case Study #8: Science and Medicine
The editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) was forced to resign because of a podcast that he wasn’t even on. In the podcast two other JAMA editors discussed racism in medicine and one questioned the appropriateness of the term “structural racism.” JAMA later promoted the podcast with the tag line ‘No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in healthcare?” This created a furious backlash and the editor-in-chief was forced to resign despite his total non-involvement.
Case Study #9: Publishing
A Black woman was hired as chief equity and inclusion officer by the Society of Children’s Book Writers and Illustrators (SCBWI). Following anti-Semitic attacks in the U.S., she posted a statement on Facebook which included the statement “Join us in not looking away in speaking out against all forms of hate, including antisemitism.” Because she didn’t simultaneously condemn Islamophobia she was attacked as a ‘white supremacist’ who deserved to die as so did her family. Apologizing only made it worse and she resigned.
Case Study #10: Comedy
A comedian performing free for UNICEF in London is told he must sign an Orwellian-titled ‘Behavioral Agreement Form’ to ensure “an environment where joy, love and acceptance is reciprocated by all….you are agreeing to our no tolerance policy with regards to racism, sexism, classism, ageism, ableism, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia or anti-religion or anti-atheism…all topics must be presented in a way that is respectful and kind…” He declined to perform. In another case, a comedian doing standup at Columbia University joked that “…no black dude wakes up and thinks that being a black man in America is too easy…” so he should also dress in women’s clothes and make Indian dudes real uncomfortable. He was told to vacate the stage.
Case Study #11: Yale University Law School
At Yale University (one of the worst cancel culture offenders) in March 2022, 120 students out of the Law School’s total student body of 700 showed up to shout down a Law School panel discussion about religious freedom, intended to show that :…a liberal atheist and a Christian conservative…” could find common ground. The protesters prevented the discussion from getting off the ground. After being thrown out they continued their shouts and pounding in the hallway outside, disrupting nearby classes and meetings. When the meeting ended attendees were attacked on their way out and had to be escorted by police. The protestors later wrote two letters claiming their safety was endangered and their freedom of speech curtailed.
[Reposted & updated by Chuck Almdale on February 26, 2024]
This five-minute test will measure what you truly think. Share it with everyone. Understand who you’re voting for. And against.
Based on a test introduced in 1996, the following test is slightly reformatted for this blog. The first two paragraphs explain the why and how of the test. A more complete explanation follows the test. Please maintain objectivity by not reading ahead.
Psychological Assessment of the President in our Constitutional Representative Democracy
Our government couldn’t or wouldn’t force former president Trump to submit to a mental examination, and it’s unlikely anyone else can or will force this upon him. Nearly all psychological professionals honor their “Goldwater Rule” and won’t comment publicly on public figures without conducting a personal examination of the person in question. Their decision is admirable but forces them to default on sharing their observations and concerns regarding the former president’s mental state. Diagnosis-at-a-distance can be risky and misleading, but in this case it is all we will get. We, the citizens of America, must do this for ourselves.
Maintain objectivity – complete entire first page before moving on to page two. Rate former President Trump, yourself or others. The test is equally applicable to anyone. Download a PDF file of page one and two of this test here. Rate each criterion 1-12 as follows: 0 = Item does not apply; 1 = Item applies somewhat; 2 = Item definitely applies. Don’t read ahead. Keep a running total of the points, maximum of 24 points. Discussion of the ratings is on the following page.
Glib and Superficial: Smooth talking, never shy, rarely stuck for something to say and will say anything. Can Include: Shallow presentation, difficult to believe. Displays of emotions do not appear genuine. Portrays self in a good light. Tells unlikely stories; has convincing explanations for behavior. Alters statements when challenged. Uses technical language and jargon, often inappropriately. Conversation and interpersonally engaging.
Grandiose Sense of Self-Worth: Highly opinionated, enormously egocentric, arrogant and self-superior; boasts and brags about everything. Can Include: Abilities and self-worth are inflated. Self-assured and opinionated. Exaggerates status and reputation. Considers adverse circumstances as result of bad luck. Sees self as victim of the system. Little concern for the future.
Deceitful and manipulative: Stunning ability to lie, even when likely to be caught; lies can be cunning, sly, or manipulative; callously cheats and cons for gain. Can Include: Manipulates without concern for others. Distorts the truth. Deceives with self-assurance and no anxiety. Fraud artist or con man. Enjoys deceiving others.
Lacks Remorse: Unfazed, dispassionate and unempathetic; disdainful about suffering they cause their victims, saying they deserved it. Can Include: No capacity for guilt; no conscience. Verbalizes remorse insincerely. Little emotion in regard to actions. Does not appreciate impact of their behavior on others. Concerned more with their own suffering than others.
Shallow Affect, Callousness and Lack of Empathy: Emotional poverty and very shallow feelings despite ability to fake friendliness; contemptuous, indifferent and tactless. Can Include: Cold and callous. Indifferent to others’ feelings or concerns. Does not appreciate emotional consequences of actions. Expressed emotions are shallow and labile (unstable). Inconsistent verbal and nonverbal emotional expressions.
Failure to Accept Responsibility for Own Actions: It’s never their fault. Uses denials of responsibility to manipulate and blame others. Can Include: Rationalizes; downplays significance of acts. Minimizes the effects of own behavior on others. Projects blame onto others. Maintains innocence or minimizes involvement in crime. Claims framed or victimized; claims amnesia or blackouts.
Impulsive: Unpremeditated behavior; can’t resist temptation or delay gratification; reckless; may brag of their cons. Can Include: “Spur of the moment;” little consideration of consequences. Frequently change jobs, school, relationships. Drifter, nomadic lifestyle, frequent changes of residence. Easily bored; problems with sustained attention. Likes activities that are exciting, risky, and challenging.
Poor Behavioral Controls: Sudden outbursts of annoyance, irritation, aggression, anger, temper, verbal abuse and hasty action. Can Include: Easily angered or frustrated, especially when drinking. Often verbally abusive. Often physically abusive (breaks objects; hurts people). Abuse may be sudden and unprovoked. Outbursts are often short-lived.
Parasitic Lifestyle, Lack of Realistic Long-Term Goals: Intentionally manipulates & exploits; avoids earning an honest living; big plans often unexecuted. Can Include: No realistic long-term plans and commitments. Lives “day-to-day,” not thinking of future. Relied excessively on family etc. for financial support. Poor academic and employment records. May describe far-fetched plans or schemes.
Irresponsible: Repeatedly fails to: honor commitments or obligations, arrive on time or at all, pay bills, honor contracts, etc. Can Include: Causes hardship to others and puts them at risk. Unreliable as spouse or parent. Job performance is inadequate. Untrustworthy with money; defaulting and not paying.
Adolescent Antisocial Behavior: Criminal, manipulative, aggressive, callous; cruel to animals and siblings, lies, steals, cheats, vandalizes, bullies. Can Include: Conduct problems at home and school. Trouble with the law as youth/minor. Antisocial activities were varied and frequent.
Adult Antisocial Behavior: Takes pride in successful and diverse crimes; often violates technical laws. Can Include: Disregards rules; legal problems as an adult. Charged or convicted of criminal offenses. Antisocial activities were varied and frequent.
This psychological assessment has a maximum of 24 points.
0-2 – Typical score for those lacking the condition
6-12 – Subject has a low level of this condition
13-17 – Subject has a middle level of this condition
18-24 – Subject has this condition at a high level
Page two of the test follows. First, complete the test above. Reading this explanation before taking the test will likely bias your results. There is also a downloadable PDF file of this test available.
Sources and Discussion
You have just used the twelve criteria of the Psychopathy Checklist – Screening Version (PCL:SV), created in 1996 by Robert Hare, PhD. PCL:SV was developed to supplement Hare’s earlier and longer Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PCL-R) created to detect psychopaths within prison populations. PCL:SV can be used by people lacking training in using the full checklist and is used for psychiatric evaluations and personnel selection. It is considered a reliable indicator of psychopathy and it indicates when a full evaluation using PCL-R would be useful. The criteria titles and general descriptions on page one are condensations from PCL-R, PCL:SV, and sources 1, 2, 4 & 6 listed below. The “Can Include” items are the PCL:SVsubcriteria as given in source 7. Anyone receiving a middle or high rating of psychopathy should be avoided. Walk away quickly and don’t look back. They are the archetypal “toxic personality.”
Approximately one percent of Americans – over three million people – are high-level psychopaths. Additionally, approximately nine percent are middle or low level psychopaths. Contrary to the very misleading depictions in the popular press and fiction, 99% of psychopaths are non-violent. They are, however, callous, unfeeling, selfish, superficial, manipulative and without conscience. They may not be physically dangerous, but they are societally disruptive and often cause enormous misery to those around them. If you found former President Trump to have a middle or high level of psychopathy, consider the danger this represents to America and to other nations and peoples. Act accordingly.
Psychopaths are similar to those of us with one or more diminished physical senses such as vision, hearing, smell or taste. Psychopaths, however, have diminished or absent emotional senses of empathy and fear; often other emotions are diminished as well. Psychopathy is a spectrum disorder, not an all-or-none disorder, and the loss of empathetic/emotional senses varies significantly between individuals. This spectrum of severity is reflected in the rating scale.
All psychopaths are narcissists, but not all narcissists are psychopaths. Some professionals now use the term “malignant narcissist” rather than “psychopath,” at least in part because the latter term has become widely misunderstood and abused. “Malignant narcissist” emphasizes a probable spectrum of behavioral toxicity as narcissism grades into psychopathy.
Studies have shown that in psychopaths the brain region known as the amygdala and its connections to and from the prefrontal cortex, the hypothalamus and other brain regions function differently than in non-psychopaths. Just as the deaf or blind ought not take up certain careers and activities – respectively music teaching and driving instructor, for example – there are occupations that psychopaths ought not follow. Politics is near the top of the list of such occupations. The world has repeatedly seen the disasters which ensue when psychopaths hold the reins of government. Psychopaths do not belong in politics. We must enact laws to ensure rigorous testing of all political incumbents and future candidates. Psychopaths can pursue other occupations and not be a danger to themselves or others.
Sources:
1. Babiak, Paul & Hare, Robert D. PhD. Snakes In Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. 2006; New York: Regan Books.
2. Hare, Robert D., PhD. Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us. 1993; New York: Guilford Press.
Additional Suggested Reading:
3. Wilson, Edward O. The Social Conquest of Earth. 2012; New York: Liveright Publishing Corp. / W. W. Norton & Co.
5. Gao, Y., Glenn, A.L., Schug, R.A., Yang, Y., Raine, A.(2009). The Neurobiology of psychopathy: A neurodevelopmental perspective. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54(12), 813-823. http://www.antoniocasella.eu/dnlaw/GAO_2009.pdf
7. Rogers, R., Salekin, R. T., Hill, C., Sewell, K. W., Murdock, M. E., & Neumann, C. S. (2000). The Psychopathy Checklist-Screening Version: An Examination of Criteria and Subcriteria in Three Forensic Samples. Assessment, 7(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/107319110000700101 [The “subcriteria in this paper is the source for the “Can Include” items in each criteria in the assessment.] For free download: Google: “hare psychopathy checklist screening version sub criteria definitions”, then select item titled: “The Psychopathy Checklist-Screening Version: -Rogers-”
8. Sonne, James W. H. & Gash, Don M. (19 April 2018). Psychopathy to Altruism: Neurobiology of the Selfish-Selfless Spectrum. Frontiers in Psychology, 19 April 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00575
Other Resources
Robert D. Hare’s Website “Without Conscience:http://www.hare.org/welcome/ Links, awards, presentations, Psychopathy Scales (tests), key references, PCL-R training, comments, contact
Aftermath: Surviving Psychopathy Foundation https://aftermath-surviving-psychopathy.org/ Dedicated to educating the public regarding the nature of psychopathy and its cost to individuals and society. We seek to support the families and victims of those with psychopathy.
The Test and Sources and Discussion above were originally Installment six and seven in an eight-part series, written in 2020 and which begins here, should you wish to read it.
I found this interview in the reader’s comments section of one of Jerry Coyne’s postings “Arrant Misconceptions about the War And Israel” (recommend reading). Bari Weiss of The Free Press interviews Lucy Aharish, an Arab/Muslim/Israeli women who is also one of the most prominent television broadcasters in Israel. I haven’t watched it yet but read very good things about it, and I consider Bari Weiss a voice of sanity, often crying in the wilderness.
The YouTube Blurb:
445,688 views Feb 9, 2024 Lucy Aharish is one of the most prominent television broadcasters in Israel—and the very first Arab Muslim news presenter on mainstream Hebrew-language Israeli television.
Born and raised in a small Jewish town in Israel’s Negev desert, as one of the only Arab Muslim families, she has a unique lens through which to view the divisions in Israeli society, the complexity of the country’s national identity, and the Middle East more generally.
Lucy has long been a vocal critic of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and is equally critical of her fellow Arab Israelis, particularly of Arab violence and the Arab leadership that she says condones it.
A Muslim and a Zionist; an Arab and an Israeli. In short, Lucy Aharaish is an iconoclast.
Bari Weiss sat down with Lucy in Tel Aviv. They talked about the October 7 massacre and its impact on the country and her family–her husband put on his uniform and headed to the south within hours of hearing the news, despite being past the age of an active reservist. She also talked about the challenges she faced growing up as the only Arab Muslim kid in a traditional Jewish village, the terrorist attack that she survived in Gaza as a child, and the hope that she has for her Muslim-Jewish son and the future of the country she calls home.
ChukarBlog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.