By Michael Schaus
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
A Harvard senior, and columnist at the Harvard Crimson,
has decided that what’s really holding Academia back is intellectual freedom.
(Wait… Don’t laugh. It turns out, that she’s serious.) Despite the fact that
academia seems to be dominated by the American left, Sandra Korn has come to
the conclusion that dissenting opinion should be banned out-right, and only
liberal notions of “social justice” should be tolerated on university campuses.
In fact, her subtitle pretty much summed up her dream of a tyrannical
thought-policed academia: “Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of
justice.”
Well, at least the she’s being honest about the left’s
love of censorship. The problem with freedom, according to the academic left,
is that it gets in the way of progressive agendas. So, for the sake of those
who want to thrust upon the rest of society their utopian vision of “social
justice”, freedoms must be limited… After all, what’s more “just” than a
sanctioned intolerance of minority views?
Korn points out that many “controversial” (read:
“conservative”) views promote sexism, bigotry and hate… Wow. Is Sandra a true
student of the left, or what? In her column she argues that dissenting views
are intolerable in academia, and therefore merit no consideration by students
or staff. “Agree with me, or shut up” seems to be her driving mantra. Because,
obviously, anyone who disagrees with Sandra Korn on any number of issues is
simply peddling intolerance. (Which is strange… Given that she seems to harbor
so much disdain for her political opponents, she’s willing to strip from them
their right to express their opinions… Now who’s peddling intolerance, Sandra?)
In her Harvard Crimson column, Sandra explains her
justification for the abandonment of intellectual diversity and free speech:
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”?
Why? Because what you might consider “racism” others
might consider legitimate critiques of the President’s policies, or racial
realities. What you might consider “sexism”, others might consider reasonable
analysis of traditional gender roles. What you consider “heterosexism”, others
might consider a made up word used to impugn the character of people who defend
traditional marriage. Are we going to bar students in Academia the right to
hear from a Cardinal, Bishop, or even the Pope because they preach traditional
heterosexual relationships? Tolerance for opposing views has been the basis for
not only American freedom, but intellectual discovery.
But she went on:
People on the right opposed to boycotts can play the
“freedom” game, calling for economic freedom to buy any product or academic
freedom to associate with any institution. Only those who care about justice
can take the moral upper hand.
Only the left can claim the moral upper hand? Has it ever
occurred to Sandra that “people on the right” believe in their ideology because
they consider it the best vehicle for true justice? (Obviously this question is
rhetorical. I think her column makes the answer pretty obvious.) A 2,000 year
old utterance suddenly leaps to mind as Sandra claims to own the patent on
morality: “Every way of a man is right in his own eye.”
Korn has a lot to say about promoting justice through the
devolution of intellectual freedom, without ever realizing that liberty is
intrinsic to justice. In fact, only through the liberal (classical use of that
word) application of freedom, has the human condition improved. Throughout
human history, the deterioration of freedom has been accompanied by oppression,
corruption and enslavement. Justice has traditionally been defined as the
preservation of liberty. Sandra’s suggestion to stifle freedom, in the name of
“justice”, is reminiscent of tyrannical monsters such as Stalin, Hitler and
Mao.
When asked how it is possible that a people would allow
themselves to be enslaved by elites, one needs to look no further than Sandra
Korn. The thought-police should remain an invention of dystopian science
fiction novels, and not be a serious proposal from a senior at an Ivy League
University. The oppression of diversity, and the censorship of dissent, have
never lead a society to greater justice or equality. Justice can never exist
without open debate, and intellectual honesty.
She concludes with:
I would encourage student and worker organizers to… use a
framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the
doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.
Sorry Sandra… Your vision for academia is the thing
totalitarianism is built upon. Freedom is what has given you, and your liberal
professors, the ability to peddle your intolerance as “social awareness”
without penalty or persecution. Simply because you do not subscribe to a
philosophy does not mean it is inherently immoral, or unworthy of the freedoms
you yourself currently enjoy. After all, it’s pretty obvious that no one has
censored Harvard columnists who have a deficit of intellectual integrity.
No comments:
Post a Comment