|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Hamas’ savage attack on Israeli civilians on October 7 sparked “woke” leftist protests at prestigious universities. The protestors sided with the terrorists butchers, indulged antisemitic and genocidal chants and slogans, and threatened the well-being of Jewish students. Campus “cancel culture,” the silencing of dissenting opinions and ideas, ran amok.
Worse, many university administrators sided with what could only be described as “hate speech,” and refused to commit to a clear condemnation of the terrorists and their student cheerleaders. Instead, they relied on weasel words like “context” to avoid their students’ wrath. The First Amendment and academic freedom, long ailing in our premier universities, are now languishing on life-support.
One exception, however, was Dartmouth University. Its president, Sian Beiloc, has created the Dartmouth Dialogues program. “I don’t want safe spaces, I want brave spaces,” she told the Wall Street Journal. “The idea is to be around the brightest minds and to be pushed and to be a little uncomfortable. Even if you’re not going to change your mind, the ability to hone your arguments and to think differently from different perspectives, these are skills and tools of higher education.”
Universities have been so corrupted by “political correctness” and its “woke” iteration, that any university president who publicly acknowledges the importance of challenging students’ ideas and opinions is welcome. We need to encourage more academics to return to the traditions of liberal education before our heritage of political freedom and equality, under assault in this country for more than a century, descends further into despotism.
But we need more than just politely listening and pondering the “other side.” We must restore and strengthen the role of reasoned argument, empirical evidence, and truth as the premier arbiter of political opinions. These foundational metrics for evaluating political ideas and ideologies, however, have been deformed in our universities and replaced with various incoherent ideas like radical relativism and amoral utilitarianism.
For the truth is, there are defining differences between our country’s two major political ideologies that are more than just party loyalty, grubby self-interest, or the lust for material wealth and power. One faction––which supports our Constitutional limited government founded on the universal reality of innate human vulnerability to destructive passions––acknowledges tradition and common sense, the collective experiences of billions of human beings that over time and space provide evidence of human behavior and motivation.
The other faction is the ideal of endless progress and improvement brought about by “experts” trained in the “human sciences”––Stalin’s “engineers of the soul.” Such technocracies must concentrate and centralize power, and discredit all rivals, particularly family, faith, tradition, customs, and common sense that challenge the authority of the “managerial elite.” Only by discrediting and displacing these traditional authorities can the “guardians,” as Plato called them in his technocratic utopia, create heaven on earth.
Yet despite pretensions of “scientific” knowledge and rational debate, despite their Orwellian rhetoric of “social justice” and “equity,” the left’s ideologies are mere pretexts for seizing power and dominating others “by any means necessary.” Hence their penchant for violence, intimidation, “cancel culture,” and censorship. They respond to pleas for reasoned debate and open minds as did the young Nazi whom philosopher of science Karl Popper tried to reason with: “You want to argue? I don’t argue, I shoot.”
Next, today’s leftists share a cult-like, extravagant certainty of their moral superiority that brooks no challenges, especially from facts that clash with their political narrative, and offend their righteous self-esteem. Their recourse to hysteria rather than reasoned, empirically supported arguments, gives the game away, as do the preposterous, illogical, and mendacious claims such as “systemic racism” or “transgenderism.” For the “woke,” differing opinions are not opportunities for sharpening the mind or exposing weak arguments, but stages on which exorbitant emotional melodramas are performed with “passionate intensity.”
Searching for the truth, however, and weeding out empirically false claims have never interested the evangelical left. They want to change the world, not their own minds. Moreover, the abandonment of truth, traditional faith, and sound arguments has left a void in our mental landscapes, which abhor a vacuum no less than nature does.
Dennis Praeger recently described the consequences:
“Instead of good and evil, we now have a set of other ‘moral’ categories: rich and poor, white and black, colonizers and colonized, strong and weak, oppressors and oppressed. Those in the latter groups — the poor, people of color, the colonized, the weak and the oppressed (real or alleged) — are, by definition, good, while those in the former categories are, by definition, bad.”
This Manichean catalogue makes the idea of respectful, open-minded debate on contested political ideas nearly impossible. A generation nursed on therapeutic pabulum and intolerance of discomfort, along with a ridiculous sense of entitlement and self-regard, will not stand for any challenges to their “woke” doctrines and victim-based identities. Careful thought and reasoned language must give way to hysterical virtue-signaling, and often violence. As leftist determinism tells us, the “personal is political,” a question of power, status, and a spurious moral prestige rather than truth.
As the Journal points out, in April the Dartmouth Dialogues program’s ambitions will be “put to the test”–– “a moderated discussion between Samieh El-Abd, a former Palestinian Authority official, and Gilead Sher, who served as chief of staff to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.”
No doubt the organizers are thinking about the reaction of their “woke” students, which experience tells us will be as unhinged and disruptive as possible. It will be embarrassing if an event supposedly promoting the pedagogical value of hearing alternative ideas, becoming “a little uncomfortable,” and learning “to think differently from different perspectives,” as the university’s president said, ends up being shut down by a mob that disdains all those ideals.
Indeed, given the shameless indulgence of antisemitic tropes, celebrations of brutal violence, and genocidal slogans, one doubts the deranged protestors will benefit from being “a little uncomfortable,” nor will they be in the mood “to think differently.” In their minds, they are absolutely certain of their virtue and righteousness. Like Lenin, they believe, as Gary Saul Morson explains, “that there was no need to understand opposing views before denouncing them, since the very fact that they were opposing views proved them wrong—and what was wrong served the enemy.”
More important, the century-long conflict between the Jews and Palestinian Arabs has produced such an abundance of lies and bad history that they comprise their own dialect of Newspeak. Most of the discourse about the conflict comprises gross distortion or patent lies: “imperialism,” “settler colonialism,” “genocide,” “occupation,” “racism,” “disproportionate,” “Palestinian.” All that vocabulary serves political propaganda, which can never be the subject of the sort of critical “dialogue” that leads to truth, or at least identifies, as did Socrates, what is false or mere opinion.
And if there is no foundation of accepted facts, then there can be no rational conversation about issues steeped in such extravagant emotions. Without truth as our lodestar, no discussion can end in anything but intimidation, censorship, or violence.
No doubt, Dartmouth’s president is sincere, and she is right about free speech and its boons. But our “woke” battalions marching for Hamas are not interested in growing intellectually, or searching for truth, or changing minds through sweet reason. Like Goldfinger, they don’t expect their ideological enemies to talk. They expect them to die.
Hamas Violence has no place in America time to start arresting these violent mobs
She may be the right person at the right time. It is good to know that there are such ones.
Yes, more of people like president Sian Beiloc is needed instead of the current crowd of milk toast admin softies running in fear of 18 to 22-year-old wise fools.
“I don’t want safe spaces, I want brave spaces,”
Not exactly the kind of rhetoric that is going to strike fear into the hearts leftists who want to kill you.
That’s the thing! Rhetoric to a leftist is NOTHING! They stand on their insane positions no matter what facts, evidence, and PROOF you show them! The ONLY thing that might affect their “reasoning” is to be DIRECTLY and PERSONALLY affected! See what’s happening in the SANCTUARY cities! They are coming apart now that they actually have to BE a sanctuary city and face the costs – monetary and life altering that others have had foisted on them by the Biden Illegals! Nah, rhetoric is just talk to be ignored!
When logic, reason, facts and evidence do not hold sway, you have entered the religious realm. These people are IN A CULT. That’s what makes them so very dangerous and we better come to that realization of what this is. We are not fighting a political party, we’re fighting a pseudo-religious cult masquerading as a political movement.
Depraved psychopathic murderous Islam has been berserk for 1400 years.
I do not believe that the followers of Islam today care a bit about truth, rationality,
the foundations of accepted facts, rational conversation about issues steeped in extravagant emotions.
Truth as a lodestar mean absolutely nothing to the depraved psychopathic berserk mind.
No discussion with these mentally defective lunatics can end in anything but intimidation, censorship, or
violence.
The president of Dartmouth does not realize or understand the mentality of the woke leftist Islamic, anti-Semitic enemy of America and Israel.
These enemies are unreachable and berserk. Their minds are broken, depraved, and immersed in hallucinations of violence and murder..
Dartmouth may just as well conduct their rational courageous spaces debates in an insane cuckoo’s nest asylum. …
Truth cannot reach the depraved psychopathic murderous Islamic enemy of humanity.
Would the president of Dartmouth conduct a rational debate with the AIDS or COVID virus ?
Depraved psychopathic murderous Islam has been a scourge on humanity for 1400 years.
Enough already.
Is there a way to contribute $$ to this author to reward this excellent essay?
As someone still teaching at the college level, I have witnessed viewpoint intolerance. Although I do have a few colleagues who do not share the woke ideology, they are afraid to speak out.
My car sports a custom made bumper sticker that states “Colleges Murder Viewpoint Diversity.” After someone tried to peel off the bumper sticker stating “Truth: Its the New Hate Speech,” I replaced it with two of them.
The college where I’ve taught for almost 30 years had a shot at having Condoleezza Rice as commencement speaker but the faculty senate shot it down and tried to keep it a secret.
When ROTC decided it wanted to be on campus, the President of the college, since gone elsewhere, was pressed by a faculty member as to why ROTC should be allowed on campus. The President stated that “they agreed to maintain a low profile.” An untenured faculty member from the Psychology Department stood up and stated “no group permitted on campus should have to maintain a low profile.”
When a professor from the English Department, while applying for the Dean of the Faculty position, was making a presentation to the faculty, I asked him “do you value viewpoint diversity and if so, can you give examples as to how you have promoted it?” He answered “yes I value viewpoint diversity. As for an example as to how I have promoted it, when serving as Coordinator of ILA (Introduction to the Liberal Arts) Program, I brought in Bill Ayers for the third time.” Apparently, bringing in an admitted, demonstrably unrepentant terrorist for the third time constitutes promoting viewpoint diversity. That professor is now the Dean.
Economists often support subsidizing education because of its positive externalities. Given the undermining of the principles that explain why the U.S. became the greatest nation to ever exist, maybe instead college education should be taxed for its negative externalities.
Good and evil have no equivalents in the categories mentioned..Each category CONTAINS some good and some evil…To make them equivalent in ANY sense is a tragic LIE. Colonialism is a very broad fact that contains BOTH good and evil. To dare to call it evil is just the vain spouting of a mindless fool. Time to bring back DEBATING COMPETITIONS WITH GREAT PRIZES…
The depraved psychopathic murderous brainwashed Islamic mind cannot be reached by truth, reason, rational debate, empirical facts … etc.etc.etc.
The depraved psychopathic murderous brainwashed Islamic mind simply cannot think.
The berserk hate-filled Islamic ideology of the Quran, espoused by Moo–Ham–Mud is beyond discussion and debate and logic and rational considerations.
The president of Dartmouth does not realize or understand this fundamental truth about Islam.
Depraved psychopathic murderous Islam has been a scourge on humanity for 1400 years.
Enough already.
It may be that Dartmouth is not taking on Islam, but such of the non-Muslim students as have been duped by the Palestinian narratives. When the useful idiots cease to be idiots, their usefulness declines proportionately.
University Competition with Debating clubs and grand prizes are the answer. TELEVISED if possible
Dialogue? Dialogue is dead, long buried.
It’s a scam. All it will do is advertise the murderers’ creed. This is not brave.
Dartmouth’s board of honorable trustees came up with this “dialogue plan” because they think it will be profitable and bring in money, oh, I mean students
yearning for truth.
The masters of woke in America have created a language of destruction. Merely expressing the lie of a woke idea generates an emotional reaction that will grow in intensity from constantly fueled anger and jealousy into vicious hatred that culminates in destructive violence and murder. It’s a primal, love-of-slaughter thing.
Jew hatred is the original, ancient woke. The rest of today’s woke agenda is a smoke screen for the ultimate purpose of wokeism, which is getting rid of all Jews and Israel.
Try peeling all that supposed non-Jew hatred back in order to help Americans understand the true reason for wokeism: Jew hatred and the obsessive desire to obliterate Israel.
Help Americans see that an imaginary, oppressed people were created, called Palestinians,
with whom, oddly enough, every woke member of the world today can identify. There would be no wokeism if there were no Jew hatred.
Hatred of truth is actually the original woke, I think.
I must add this revelation: These dialogues are actually a vehicle for promoting a Palestinian State.
Why? The first dialogue is between a “former” PA guy and a “former” Ehud Barak guy.
The Biden administration is pushing a “revitalized” PA to rule in Gaza and Judea and Shomron and Jerusalem. And crazy Ehud Barak, former disastrous prime minister of Israel, is openly calling for revolution in Israel and the
overthrow of the Netanyahu government. The nut wants new elections now, in the middle of the Hamas war.
So, it’s not a sham for money. It’s really a pro-terror, pro-Hamas strategy to continue the indoctrination.
Good for the lady. “brave spaces” is how we got to the moon. Brave spaces is how America was always able to hold it’s collective head high and show the world the way. Pray she holds fast.
US parents take note – send your son or daughter to Dartmouth, not Harvard (and NB such a policy, if adopted widely enough, would effectively defund universities that exist to programme people, rather than training them in critical thinking).
I wish her well in this endeavor. I believe the author is correct in his analysis of the Left (e.g., “I don’t want to discuss, I want you to shut up”). Nevertheless, it’s worth a try. Good luck to her, and Dartmouth.
When the press is being manipulated, censored, airwaves and webpages filled with junk, and o many barking ignorant idiots on TV you just want to throw a brick at the thing, and then you hear the same situation is also happening on campuses instead of honest academics or honest anything else, you kinda wonder what kind of clownworld we’re living in where govt. people are demanding/commanding that their version of truth and public perception of truth MUST coincide, rather than just advising the public to use their own faculties to try and establish WTF to the best of their abilities. Think for yourself, now more than ever, and dial back the conflicting cacophony. The politics virus has apparently infected everything so keep a good edge on your Occam’s razor, assume you’re being lied to, and maybe just give the whole thing a rest until the smoke clears…’the truth will out’, quoth the Bard, lies and liar’s clubs eventually fall apart, remember to keep it civil a much as possible. Devil’s got a website and people’s minds are his favorite toy…god bless.
If truth is more important than civility, then here is a simple question to try to find truth. Why on October 7 did the IDF stand down and allow the massive killing, raping, barbaric carving up of people, the taking of massive numbers of hostages, all without any serious effort by the very capable IDF to do its job and protect the Israelis who are located on the most protected border in the world? Why did the IDF stand down? The question has been posed ever since and the world has been told to “wait” until after Gaza is obliterated and then investigations and blue ribbon panels can tell us what the truth is, according to them. Odd way to pursue the truth.
I live in Israel and I’m also very bothered by this. The working assumption seems to be that it was a failure based on incompetence or negligence, which is very strange as you point out. In addition, if we assume that this theory is correct, why are the same people in charge of a protracted ground war endangering large numbers of soldiers?
At the same time, it is quite bizarre to imagine that this was intentional to the extent of allowing hundreds of civilians to be killed for some mysterious agenda, especially since this fact is very detrimental to the political ambitions of those in power right now.
In short, there is a real puzzle here which doesn’t seem to have an obvious easy answer.
I wish I could agree with paragraph 6, but I think there is more unity between the old Democrat and Republican parties than meets the eye.
My father a diehard Kennedy Democrat (not an LBJ Dem) would be voting for Trump and would have called out the Dems as Commies long ago, and rightly so.
As evidenced by the rightful actions of Netanyahu, actions create solutions, one way or the other. Endless talk and negotiations only exacerbate the problem as only one side in this equation has any interest in peace. The Left needs to grow up and stop defending the indefensible.
Without the mob rule in the streets of the West being January sixthed there can be no safe or brave dialogue.
Israel did things that were wrong in Biblical times – as well as much that was right – and today it’s the mixture as before. The difference is that, for Israel, wrongdoing is a falling away from its best self; for Hamas, wrongdoing IS its best self.
One of the best essays I have read in some time.
The overused and overplayed mantra of “do not become like your enemy” is useful only to your enemy. When an opponent becomes violent and leaves reason behind, being reasonable with them is a foolish and dangerous thing to do. Like a schoolyard bully, they do not recognize, acknowledge, or understand those who reason with them. (Just ask those Jewish students who locked themselves in a university library.)
There is only one thing left to do at that point, which is to defend oneself and defeat them at their own game. This is the only language that an unreasoning enemy understands. When that rubicon is crossed, those who through high virtue continue to try to reason with those who would kill them are themselves delusional.
And yet, there is a person more evil than those who commit aggression. It is those who remove all distinctions between those who commit aggression, and those who defend against it. “Woe to them who call good evil, and evil good”.
How many faculty members at Dartmouth aren’t extreme Leftists? How many conservative speakers are allowed on campus? How extensive is DEI programing? How many affirmative action positions exist and how many students are admitted via the same policies.
Forgive me if I judge this dean by these standards rather than brave spaces.
I think you have made an error – it is Dartmouth College, not Dartmouth University.
Yes, and that name has had to be defended from those who do not respect tradition.
See Daniel Webster “and there are those who love it”! (Doing this from memory. My brother was Class of ’50.
Her choice on the supposed Israeli/Jewish side seem leftwing and weak. Give us a break with these false debates that favor the left!
I think this is great! A college president saying it is ok to agree to disagree; matter of fact, encouraging it as it’s all part of learning. It is long overdue. Thank you President Beiloc!
This is a great and courageous step in the right direction for academia. Nutty that opening dialogue and debating ideaological truth is a novel idea which comes at the risk of violence or even a “little discomfort,” especially on college campuses and especially at Ivy ones, but this is the day & age in which we live. True, some (most?) of the brainwashed/brain dead leftist little darlings are beyond the point of no return, and are, therefore, dangerous, but maybe not all of them. In the quiet recesses of their young noodles, there might be a few curious voices open to understanding countervailing, minority views, sincere Truth & actual Justice, fairness, reason, humanity and peace. This very well could seed to other campuses, even if by such vanities and mistakes as envy and pseudo-intellectual uniqueness, not that I believe the president’s intentions are anything but sincere, genuine and worthy. In a cynically optimistic way, one can see the other Ivies plagiarizing this idea in a game of one-upsmanship! 😉 But seriously, this program/idea is a ray of light in an otherwise very dark decade plus. And the fact that such novel & courageous tact to the very fundamental mission of education itself is initiated by a college president on the job for less than a year, adds to my optimism and detracts from my cynicism. I think some of the kids just might sincerely go for it coming as a breath of fresh air. The kids who self-censor or are otherwise intimidated, live in fear or are peer pressured into suppressing their intellectual instincts will feel more at liberty to think & speak up for themselves and against the grain. Kudos to the president of Dartmouth- she’s a role model – one who isn’t preaching the same ole leftist nonsense and seems well-grounded in honesty and intellectual curiosity, and, of course, obviously courage!
God bless and best of luck to ya!
Always fascinates me, why those so-called enlighten ruling elite don’t understand human nature. Men have been fighting with each other since the dawn of time.. For the the purpose of control of his possession and his environment. Basically self preservation, Like all fights, one side winds one side loses. That’s why all societies eventually collapse due to competing In5erests. To try to bring peace between Jews and Arabs in the ME is a pipe dream. Peace will only come when one side is victorious. over the other. And the victor imposes its will on the defeated.