Social Discourse As Gang War: Some Commentary on Intellectual Intolerance
Bias is bias regardless of how highly paid you are, how popular you are, or how self-righteous you may be. That is what is so troubling about modern news reporting and popular opinion based talk shows. Entering an echo chamber is like entering a vacuum. It’s not interesting as other perspectives tend to be oversimplified and distorted, the life being sucked out of them on a defacto basis. In this context, a person is left only with their reflection. Most people take this one-sided approach as an appropriate representation of what is right while never realizing that the goal of this strategy is to smother diversity of idea and throw it in a ditch to die as if it were an enemy in some sort of gang war.
Grinding my teeth at the poor logic, a hostage to my grandfather’s T.V. watching (and I say this in the most loving, light hearted way), I couldn’t help but cringe at today’s The View. While they did talk about colleges as places to exchange ideas, they still conceptualize diversity as a matter of skin tone or sexuality rather than the infinite universe within that is necessarily diverse in each individual. Their claim that anyone who has an opposing view to this externalized vision of diversity should be at a Republican convention not a college campus couldn’t be more incorrect. If colleges are places for the exchange of ideas, that means that all ideas covered by the first amendment should be fair game, especially since colleges are places of learning. Students may not receive or discover opportunities to learn about other ideas, such as diversity of thought, if they encounter intellectual dogmatism at their colleges.
I am not surprised by the coverage by this popular talk show; however, to be fair, they aren’t the only ones who recite the narrative that any other idea about diversity is necessarily evil, a devil to their secular religion, yet I fail to see any coherent understanding on their part or on the part of most mainstream media about the importance of diversity of thought. Every once in a while, I do encounter someone from the left who will be fair and acknowledge the importance of diversity of thought, but I often hear the terminology changed to diversity of belief. Belief carries with it all the connotations of righteousness while thought is a broader concept that can more fully accommodate all of the variation out there. While my beliefs may be holistically Republican, for example, I may vary in thought with the Republican party on one issue or the other, such as cannabis— though I have met plenty of Republicans who think cannabis is really a non-issue. If people exalt diversity of belief, they may not leave enough room open for diversity of thought and thus disregard potential variation of idea.
Despite the popularly viewpoint, historically colleges have been places where diverse ideas, one way or another, can circulate. As learning institutions, college instructors are obligated to correct errors and poor logic, but ideally, as places of instruction, study, and discussion, colleges should allow people to discuss a broad range of perspectives. Early colleges were offshoots of monastic learning, but as time passed and the encyclopedic tendency of the middle ages blossomed, more and more expansive discourses found an outlet for exploration though conformity to the church and other laws of state limited some of the intellectual terrain that could be traversed. Even so, literature and other arts have always been avenues for transgressing heavy handed rules on thought, so despite varying waves of intellectual intolerance, the educated, and later the public in general, have been able to contemplate ideas counter to the mainstream. Our humble clerk Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales is a good example of this type of literature as it offers criticism on the church elite in an entertaining way. It helped that Chaucer was well-liked in court, but history itself speaks to the power of creative work and its ability to express commentary counter to the status quo, and countless pieces of creative work were pondered and created by those who attended or graduated from the university. As time passed, colleges continued progressing in terms of discourse. By the time of Martin Luther, it was clear that opposing views mattered and could change the entire world. Even if Martin Luther left the university to pursue his destiny, his works have been debated in classrooms for centuries. The study of Martin Luther King Jr.’s ideas likewise demonstrate the importance of diverse viewpoints in college discourse. While he had a mixed reception during his lifetime, the value of his work is almost universally accepted today, and I do not doubt that through out the decades, academic exposure to his ideas has helped correct assumptions and broaden perspectives.
I was lucky enough to attend college when there was still breathing room to express different ideas without the entire well being poisoned. The other students and I took it for granted for the most part and didn’t knee-jerk assume someone with an opposing view was a bigot. Because we were able to explore ideas without fear of the Woke mob, we gained a more multi-faceted view of our world and the ideas in it.
Still, even then, there were some who were quick to call others bigots, but luckily there were teachers who weren’t afraid to correct the accusations. As part of my graduate work, I studied modern ethnic literature. The class was discussing Primo Levi’s Survival in Auschwitz, a book by an Italian Jew who survived the holocaust. During discussion, I pointed out that Levi used Dante’s famous “Abandon all hope ye who enter here” and that his experience in the concentration camp reminded me of Dante’s journey through Hell. Nowadays, this perspective is widely available in casual Internet searches, but my observation came from my prior study of Dante, no Internet search needed. After I mentioned what I noticed, one of the far-left students in the class told me, in a loud and self-righteous tone, “You can’t say that. That’s racist. The Italians allied with the Nazis.” I was mortified. The last thing anyone wants to be called is “racist Nazi,” especially when offering an innocent observation in a graduate school class. The instructor let him speak and then asked the class what they thought. My heart was racing. It was like one of those nightmares when you are at school and realize you are naked. I can’t recall what the other students said if anything. I do remember the instructor letting some uncomfortable silence build. Then she broke the tension, explaining, “Selena is correct. Dante lived long before the Nazis, and there is nothing racist in being inspired by Dante. After all, Levi is both Italian and Jewish. Even though the writing relates to his suffering during the holocaust, that doesn’t mean Levi should hate Italian culture since Italian culture is his culture.” The accuser’s jaw dropped, and I felt a strong sense of relief. Class was dismissed, but for weeks I thought about how difficult it would be to speak at all if one had to constantly worry about being labeled a bigot. I’m sure the people at The View and others who think anything other than external diversity doesn’t matter that much might say that if a student accidentally said something hateful or insensitive, then it’s a teaching point. While this is true if the statement was actually hateful or insensitive, I stand at variance with this position because with the social climate being what it is, everyone is at risk for being labeled a bigot simply due to disagreement and bias. If someone speaks and is corrected, the truth is that that person may be being corrected inappropriately since it is okay to have different opinions about how to achieve a harmonious and fair society. After all, even arguing that merit should be the deciding factor in college admissions rather than ethnicity is now a controversial topic, and those who argue for favoring people due to their skin tone are quick to argue that merit based selection is racist, unfair, and doesn’t account for the obstacles people face due to their ethnic background. Once the accusations of racism start flying, it is easy to silence people, and in this specific example, part of what is being silenced is the idea that racial selection is actually racist since it favors one group over the other. Anyone who works hard to build their merit should be able to achieve admission regardless of race, but when equity measures are in place, those with more merit are sometimes denied admission in favor of those with less. Not everyone has to agree about the best method for admission, but the current social climate aims to negate different ways of seeing, which in turn stifles learning and may actually prevent our society from adopting the best course of action for any given problem.
It is time to stop seeing our fellow countrymen as enemies. I say this knowing the left views my language as an artifact of the patriarchy even though the history of English proves that man and men can apply universally to anyone. It’s the nitpicking and assuming the worse that has dangerous implications and consequences. When routine social discourse feels like a drive by shooting, it is clear something is wrong. When school instruction and discussion are so tightly controlled, ideas can’t circulate. Inevitably, we discover a zeitgeist of intolerance with most people displaying a poor or incomplete understanding of opposing views. These same people, not realizing their bias or distorted understanding, are more than ready to attack others and potentially destroy their careers and lives. However, in the West, allowing diversity of thought is what has allowed for positive social change over time. It has opened intellectual doorways, allowing greater and greater amounts of people, over time, to learn why slavery and racism are contrary to the liberty promised to the country by the framers, why communism systematically doesn’t work, why corporations should make wiser choices about the materials they use, and so much more. To act as if everything has been figured out and that differing views are a menace hinders opportunities to learn and to grow. Sometimes unpopular opinions turn out to be correct and useful. Sometimes compassion is not applied in a balanced, wise manner. To allow free speech at colleges and society in general is essential. Let’s not make America an ideological turf war.
