By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, February 21, 2014
Cancel the philosophy courses, people. Oh, and we’re
going to be shuttering the political science, religion, and pre-law departments
too. We’ll keep some of the English and history folks on for a while longer,
but they should probably keep their résumés handy.
Because, you see, they are of no use anymore. We have the
answers to the big questions, so why keep pretending there’s anything left to
discuss?
At least that’s where Erin Ching, a student at Swarthmore
College, seems to be coming down. Her school invited a famous left-wing
Princeton professor, Cornel West, and a famous right-wing Princeton professor,
Robert George, to have a debate. The two men are friends, and by all accounts
they had an utterly civil exchange of ideas. But that only made the whole thing
even more outrageous.
“What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a
liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion,” Ching told
the Daily Gazette, the school’s newspaper. “I don’t think we should be
tolerating [George’s] conservative views because that dominant culture embeds
these deep inequalities in our society.”
Swarthmore must be so proud.
Over at Harvard, another young lady has similar views.
Harvard Crimson editorial writer Sandra Y. L. Korn recently called for getting
rid of academic freedom in favor of something called “academic justice.”
“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and
heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply
in the name of ‘academic freedom’?” Korn asks.
Helpfully, she answers her own question: “When an
academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it
should ensure that this research does not continue.”
One could easily dismiss these students as part of that
long and glorious American tradition of smart young people saying stupid
things. As Oscar Wilde remarked, “In America the young are always ready to give
to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their
inexperience.”
But we all know that this nonsense didn’t spring ex
nihilo from their imaginations. As Allan Bloom showed a quarter century ago in
The Closing of the American Mind, these ideas are taught.
Indeed, we are now up to our knees in this Orwellian
bilge. Diversity means conformity.
Let me invoke personal privilege by citing a slightly
dated example. When the Los Angeles Times picked me up as a columnist in 2005,
Barbra Streisand publicly canceled her subscription in protest (I’m proud to
say). You see, Streisand’s friend, iconic left-wing columnist Robert Scheer,
had been let go. And I was one of the new columnists brought on board. This was
an outrage.
“The greater Southern California community is one that
not only proudly embraces its diversity, but demands it,” Streisand wrote to
the Times in a syntactically impaired rant that read a bit like one of those
letters I occasionally get from prison inmates who’ve memorized words from a thesaurus
without fully understanding what they mean. “Your publisher’s decision to fire
Robert Scheer is a great disservice to the spirit of our community. . . . So
although the number of contributors to your op-ed pages may have increased, in
firing Robert Sheer [sic] and putting Jonah Goldberg in his place, the gamut of
voices has undeniably been diluted.”
Nearly a decade later, I still don’t know what it means
to dilute a gamut of voices. But I do know what she meant by “diversity.” It
means: “people who agree with me.” It’s lazy and insipid shorthand for “left
wing.” After all, by the normal metrics of identity politics — race, religion,
gender — Scheer and I are largely interchangeable. Where we differ is ideology.
And ideological diversity is the only kind of diversity the Left finds
offensive.
Which brings us back to the sages of Swarthmore and
Harvard. They at least understand that ideological diversity is actually, like,
you know, a thing. They just think it’s a bad thing.
More pernicious, however, is that they believe the
question of justice is a settled matter. We know what justice is, so why let
serious people debate it anymore? The millennia-old dialogue between Aristotle,
Plato, St. Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Rawls, Rorty, Hayek et al.? Shut it
down, people. Or at least if the conversation heads in a direction where the
Korns, Chings, and Streisands smell “oppression” — as defined solely by the
Left — then it must not be “put up with.” Diversity demands that diversity of
opinion not be tolerated anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment