College Turmoil

[Josh]

Context may matter - sort of....but does it really? What might happen if in a dorm room chat a young fella popped off about no gays or blacks being allowed on campus or simply in his dorm and there were a gay or black person present? How long do you think it would take the DEI wheels to start churning and seriously discipling, if not outright expelling, that student if the offended party had complained to the right people? At the end of the day, no one watching those inept and inarticulate presidents believes that they care a fig about free speech. If they did, Amy Wax would be able to teach at UPenn and Ronald Sullivan wouldn't have been fired (by Gay in a different capacity) from Harvard.

I agree with what you're saying here, although I think students should be free to express their opinions about demographics in their dorm rooms (and elsewhere). It is true that the left is being hypocritical about this, and currently the right is seizing on a chance to punish the left's hypocrisy. But I can't help but note that the right is being hypocritical, too.

[temporal1]

t1,
Ben Shapiro operates a news/media outlet called "The Daily Wire". You seem very up to date on whatever Ben Shapiro is saying, so I'd venture to say that, yes, you do watch the news and keep up with it.

i wasn’t happy with my wording. it was late, my brain quit. (not that late+tired are prerequisites for my poor writing.)
i think my recent posts, in the last year or so, reflect i view a number of OPINION sources, a range of OPINION pieces from “young men on the street types,” like Doc Rich, to more scholarly opinions, like, Gad Saad. i consider Ben S work as OPINION.

i think it’s important to separate what is presented as msm news reporting, whether left or right, from OPINIONS.
most news outlets offer OPINION pieces, too. i don’t ignore ALL. i try to ignore msm. i appreciate OPINIONS.
i appreciate MD, now MN, as an OPINION forum.

^^i think you’re correct to question that. the distinctions are important, the internet muddies the waters.

I agree. I really don't worry about the lefts viewpoint in this and do not consider it an insult to agree with the right on this terrible situation (there's a reason they're called "right" ) and I too have lear MN ed to value HKs perspective on any given topic here.

I do realize if one is limited by their church of news sources they may be missing important pieces but as in all things the left & right are truly divided on all things. Biden has been supportive of Israel and had a Hannakuh observance of some type yesterday at the Capitol which was admirable.

This post is a great example of the polarised, us-vs-them thinking that dominates modern political discourse.

In my view, this is an OPINION on an INFORMAL DISCUSSION FORUM, between people who get to know one another through written discussion. Lots of members know one another IRL. Friends+acquaintances chatting.

For me, this is the beauty of this forum. Informal communication.

More HK, less white noise.
HK consistently acknowledges all sides of every topic. He is gracious to all. He is well read, as a number of present+past members are. [His sources slay me.] The man literally reads. i hope some of his habits rub off on me.

Don’t miss his latest doozy, bottom of P.7.

Which causes me to miss Knight.
Knight understood everything i wrote in uncanny ways. That was a nice experience, ‘cause i know i can be confusing, and other.

In a few words, Knight could explain TO ME what i was saying, and why, with etymological, cultural, historical notes.
No wonder i miss him.

Isn’t that it, tho? Everyone wants to be understood. Even with no words.
A basic human desire.

“Where Mennonites and others connect.” Connect is the operative word.

[temporal1]

To add depth:

P.2 / Palestine - (non-eschatological)
viewtopic.php?t=6205&start=10

This book: Dollar, Dove, and Eagle: One Hundred Years of Palestinian Migration to Honduras is a fascinating look at that immigration.

A great deal of Palestinians migrated to the U.S. around the time of WWI. Most of them were Arab Catholics (before such as thing as pan-Arab identity really existed) and integrated into general Catholic American society. You would be hard pressed to identify any of them in America today. Many of them would think they have “Lebanese” ancestry, and a common example of a surname would be Nader.

Interestingly, a massive wave of Palestinian and Lebanese Christians migrated to Central America and Columbia around the same time and continued to do so over the next few decades. Outside the U.S., Honduras has the highest number of Palestinian immigrants/descendants in all of America. Here they're still known as Turquos (Turks) because at the time of initial immigration their passport was from the Ottoman Empire. They tend to be very wealthy and the owners of local businesses, media outlets and large corporations. Some of the Honduran-born descendants have gone quite far in politics and 2 have become president. Many came over as Eastern Orthodox and while there are a few EO churches in the country; many converted to Catholicism for convenience.

I teach a number of their descendants at my school with last names like: Barjum, Hilsaca, Kawas, Kattan, Gabrie & Canahuati;
a certain Mr. Hilsaca is one of my closest friends in Honduras.

They try their best to maintain their culture and heritage and many of the older generations still speak Arab amongst themselves.
In the largest city there's an exclusive organization called Club Arabe that requires that at least one parent be fully Turquo for membership. Indeed, a lot of the Turquo culture, especially the food, has mixed into the wider Honduran culture.

Very interesting! Never knew that except for your voice being here and you being on the ground there. Thanks!

[HondurasKeiser]

HK, what is your position on universities that have adopted the Chicago statement into their free speech policies.

I don't know that I've ever given much thought to the Chicago statement - I remember when it was first issued and the hay that was made of it in the conservative media world, but that's about it.

That being said, I am ambivalent about Free Speech. I can recognize its value and benefit to society and I think I would chafe in a world in which I was restricted in some way from being able to freely express my thoughts and opinions. Alas, I am, at root, a liberal and I love my freedom to do and say as I wish (even if I don't fully exercise that freedom). The few times I have been immersed in a truly conservative, uniformly restrictive culture that deigned to tell me what I could or couldn't wear/say/do - I chafed. I don't recount that proudly - just as a matter of fact. I was raised in a liberal society; I think and feel like a liberal that just so happens to draw the boundaries more conservatively than a lot of other folk.

Alas, I am also schizophrenic about freedom and my right to live as I wilt. I recognize that there is something sinister and nihilistic about the modern project. With one hand it gives great freedom to create and build and strive towards utopia; and with the other it atomizes, vulgarizes and destroys. This, by way of example, came across my transom this morning. It's not the best example of the downside of Freedom of Speech but one nonetheless: Kim Reynolds calls Iowa Capitol satanic display 'objectionable,'


The liberal in me says that what the lawmakers quoted in the piece state, is quite right:

"In a free society, the best response to objectionable speech is more speech, and I encourage all those of faith to join me today in praying over the Capitol and recognizing the Nativity scene that will be on display ― the true reason for the season."

"I don't want the state evaluating and making determinations about religions. I am guided by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

I can imagine Ken writing those words.

The non-liberal in me though then brings to the fore the fact that there is an altar to Satan erected in a government building in the U.S. in 2023. I can imagine you, Barnhart or JBG, writing that the Satanic Altar is just the truth and foundation of government being revealed for all to see but I think that misses something. The rationale for keeping it there on the part of Christian lawmakers is perhaps more troubling than the altar itself. They are transactional in their thinking, "I have to accept altars to Satan so that I can also have my Nativity Scene". They're delusional in their aspirations: the truth of the Nativity will not win out over a goat head because the unspoken message being sent is that there is no truth to be found there, all are equally absurd and everyone has their preferred absurdity. Their highest value is not Truth but Freedom - freedom to live as they wilt. That value, Freedom, seems incapable of truly drawing us towards Truth. That was the hope at the beginning of the Enlightenment, that is the conceit of the University project, indeed that is the seed of the Protestant Rupture. Every man a priest quickly became: "...every man is the arbiter of his own virtues but let no man prescribe for another mans wellbeing..."

None of us are Free Speech absolutists I suppose. All of us draw the line somewhere and in a democracy, the majority is usually able to draw the line for all - try using the N-word in public, for example. It's simply that, in a telos-less society that values freedom above all else, those lines and boundaries are ever shifting; and once again Truth gets reduced to your truth or my truth and thus, in reality, not truth just an assertion of power as Faulkner recognizes.

None of this answers your question I realize. What to make of the Chicago Statement? Yes, I think free inquiry and expression is an important, foundational principle of the university system and should remain as such. I'm not that far off of Ken in that regard (he and I just disagree on the particulars). However, I believe that freedom must not simply be an end unto itself but put in service to the pursuit of true Truth which means of course that it must, here and there, be restricted, perhaps in a more stringent way than what we're used to our liberal world. Freedom for Freedom's sake is a fool's errand and leads to death.

Philip Rieff’s My Life Among the Deathworks. Near the end he recalls that his grandfather did not want to be buried in America, where he lived, but in Israel, where he had grown up. His reason was that “he thought Hitler had won in some way” in the West, and he did not want his grave there. It is a haunting comment. Rieff explains it by arguing that the West is susceptible to “decreation,” a Nazi-like cultural impulse to throw off all external authority and plunge civilization into an orgy of self-destruction.

- Carl Trueman, First Things

[temporal1]

^^i wondered if barnhart’s question would be overlooked, happy to see HK’s response.
i’ve only read once, not enough for me, i’ll be rereading.

i don’t believe Ben S would be at odds with HK.
what i understand Ben S to be asking for is: consistent application of university policy, whatever it is.

i believe this is The Chicago Statement: please correct if mistaken!

PDF / 3 pages / “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression”
The Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago was appointed in July 2014 by President Robert J. Zimmer and Provost Eric D. Isaacs “in light of recent events nationwide that have tested institutional commitments to free and open discourse.” The Committee’s charge was to draft a statement “articulating the University’s overarching commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberation among all members of the University’s community.”

The Committee has carefully reviewed the University’s history, examined events at other institutions, and consulted a broad range of individuals both inside and outside the University. This statement reflects the long-standing and distinctive values of the University of Chicago and affirms the importance of maintaining and, indeed, celebrating those values for the future.
https://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/defa ... Report.pdf

HK is the healthiest schizophenic i’ve come across, i pray he doesn’t wilt too much.
HK, i appreciate your consistent and non-binary views on liberal/conservative thought, i believe it’s closer to “the mark” than what is commonly found, anywhere. Thank you.

[RZehr]

HK- very well written. I agree.

[barnhart]

Thanks HK, your response reads like an editorial. There is very little there I would disagree with. The liberal project is a runaway train but everyone is along the same track, scoffing those behind them who got off sooner and expressing horror at those who went further. The secular West may experience a "de-creation" event but isn't that the flip side expression of the same passions that produced the horrors of empire, like the Crusades, in previous eras. I am reminded of the epistle to the Hebrews, "We have here no continuing city, for we seek one to come."

Like you, absolute free speech makes me feel uneasy but the alternative seems dangerous as well. Perhaps locating it in zones, such as universities where there is lip service to intellectual inquiry is a good idea. Running around like a cosmic librarian with finger to the lip "shushing" seems like a misguided cause.

The"satanic" display in the statehouse doesn't produce much anxiety in me, it's a stunt by secularists who are angling to evacuate religious symbols from government, a cause I might favor in some way.

Someone asked Stanley Hauerwas a question about his outlook on the decline of the "Christian" West, he responded this is a great blessing from God as now we no longer need to pretend, compromise or make excuses. Now we need only to live the truth.

[Josh]

I’d agree with Barnhart there absolute free speech needs to have a few zones where it rules the day. The legislature is certainly one of them (I find the satanic altar offensive, but where better to debate and discuss whether such altars should be in public spaces?)

Likewise, the academy should be a place where different ideas - even offensive ones - can be debated, discussed, and challenged.

I think a distinction should be drawn between speech and protest however. Blocking traffic isn’t speech. Yelling through a bullhorn isn’t speech; it’s yelling. Universities should be places where debated and advocacy from multiple viewpoints are being expressed about the current conflict in the Middle East.

Instead, we are heading towards a dystopia where both sides seek to silence the other.

[Ken]

I’d agree with Barnhart there absolute free speech needs to have a few zones where it rules the day. The legislature is certainly one of them (I find the satanic altar offensive, but where better to debate and discuss whether such altars should be in public spaces?)

Likewise, the academy should be a place where different ideas - even offensive ones - can be debated, discussed, and challenged.

I think a distinction should be drawn between speech and protest however. Blocking traffic isn’t speech. Yelling through a bullhorn isn’t speech; it’s yelling. Universities should be places where debated and advocacy from multiple viewpoints are being expressed about the current conflict in the Middle East.

Instead, we are heading towards a dystopia where both sides seek to silence the other.

There is no absolute right to free speech and never has been. Not in public spaces, not in universities, not anywhere. That whole notion is a myth.

Take the satanic altars for example. There is absolutely no right that guarantees those folks or any other group the right to put of displays of any kind in PUBLIC spaces. All the courts have found is that if you are going to accommodate ONE religion in allowing displays in public spaces then you have to allow ALL of them the same opportunity. So these satanic altars only pop up in places where public officials have chosen to accommodate the message or display of one specific faith. Every single courthouse and public building in the country is perfectly within its rights to announce that either: (1) they aren't going to accommodate any religious displays from any group, or (2) they are going to accommodate any religious displays from any group as long as they are all treated equally.

Likewise at universities or anywhere else. There is no absolute right to free speech in any context and never has been. There are lots of things I could say or publish that would get me expelled from any university public or private. And that is as it should be.

That said, I think universities and other institutions should generally favor free expression over restraint of free expression. And that there should be a pretty high bar and presumption in favor of free expression. But that doesn't mean they should allow any sort of free for all in every situation. What they should do is establish clear and fair standards and stick to them.

[Josh]

There is no absolute right to free speech and never has been. Not in public spaces, not in universities, not anywhere. That whole notion is a myth.

Actually, there is an absolute right to free speech. Let's read the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see any limits there. Do you?

Take the satanic altars for example.

Last I checked, assembling an altar isn't "speaking". The first amendment also covers "respecting an establishment of religion", which is a different part of the sentence than "freedom of speech".

Likewise at universities or anywhere else. There is no absolute right to free speech in any context and never has been. There are lots of things I could say or publish that would get me expelled from any university public or private. And that is as it should be.

There is an absolute right to free speech as far as federal legislation and regulation is concerned (and this amendment has been found by the courts to be incorporated against state and local laws as well). That doesn't mean a private entity can't regulate behaviour on its own campus. But for a public university, they really do have almost no space to regulate people SPEAKING. They can, however, regulate other things. For example, they can establish rules about WHEN someone can speak in class, or who is admitted to classes, or who is even admitted onto the grounds. But they can't restrict people speaking.