In recent years there has been a
disturbing phenomenon on college campuses across the US, which in turn reflects
a growing trend within the nation as a whole. This phenomenon can be described
as “un-American” at best; different groups of overly sensitive people demanding
an absolute conformity of opinions, behaviors, and personal beliefs. Anyone
failing to conform (or assumed to be failing) is immediately demonized as
hateful, prejudiced, narrow-minded, immoral, unpatriotic, or whatever else
seems appropriate. Unfortunately in recent times the response to unwanted
persons, including university guest speakers that have been invited by faculty,
is for people to loudly and rudely protest or even hold a school hostage by
rioting.
This article will examine the beginning of this disturbing trend of aberrant behavior, and how it has evolved over the past few decades. Several questions will be raised which are relevant to university life and to the productivity of the population as a whole. How did academia lose its historic goal of free and open debate? Why are university students seemingly eager to protest, riot, and in general make nuisances of themselves? Will this affect the creativity of the average citizen?
In 1987 University of Chicago
Professor Allan Bloom published an unexpected best seller bearing the title “The
Closing of the American Mind”. In
his book the author argued that "higher education has failed democracy and
impoverished the souls of today's students”. His argument was that today’s
colleges have put too much emphasis on relativism and have thus given students
a misguided understanding of history, culture, and society. The book is lengthy
and can be difficult to comprehend; however, the problems the author is
discussing have only gotten worse as time has progressed. This book is even
more relevant today than it was in 1987, the close-minded perspective has only
gotten worse over the decades, and it is of benefit to review some of the major
points.
The author begins by discussing the
purpose of education and its desired goals. The discussion continues by
describing how different societies seek different outcomes from an education
system. He uses the example of the early American republic seeking people with
certain characteristics: honesty; industriousness; love of family; knowledge of
the “natural” rights embedded in the Declaration of Independence; and an
understanding and appreciation for the form of government designed by the
Founding Fathers. He compares this with more traditional autocratic societies
in which myth, fantasy, severe discipline, and extended family or tribal
connections, produce a fanatical loyalty to the nation which is in contrast to
the rational, reflective, and even self-interested loyalty to a democratic form
of government and its rational principles. The difference in the two is the
understanding of natural rights. The American public is united in a certain
brotherhood by its common appreciation for the rights and freedoms enjoyed by
all citizens; regardless of race, class, religion, or ethnicity.
The author makes the argument that
the modern educational system focusing on openness and relevancy has rejected
all such ideas; it ignores the idea of natural rights and the historical
development of the nation. In more recent times, three decades after the book’s
printing, many in academia have gone so far as to condemn most of the Founding
Fathers for various reasons other than their efforts to form a new nation: some
were slave owners, others kept mistresses, others had illegitimate children,
some were Roman Catholics while others were deists, all were “rich old white
men”, and none had the foresight to live
in accordance with the narrow-minded political correctness which has come to
dominate the nation two-hundred years later.
In recent years the mentality on
university campuses has become increasingly insular and often petty. Many
students and university administrators have come to reject the idea of Freedom
of Speech and Expression, in an effort to stamp out
anything which may be in some way construed as hate, racism, sexism, or
possibly offensive. There are
examples of students demanding the removal of plaques, titles, or memorabilia, because the name of the associated person
sounds prejudiced or unpleasant; regardless
of the person’s history, contribution, character, or complete innocence of any
wrongdoing. Theater performances, works of art, statues of significant
historical figures, and other works of design or beauty, have also received
similar treatment.
This trend towards increasingly
insular thinking has taken a turn to the worse, towards violence and rioting;
but it is not always the students at fault. In 2015 a student photographer
filming a student gathering on school grounds was accosted by a professor of
Journalism demanding he leave the premises. The professor made national
headlines when she was caught on film while shouting “I
need some muscle over here”. After a strong response from the community,
the local prosecutor filed charges against the professor and the university
terminated her employment. However, there is a deeper issue at stake. What
prompted this professor of journalism to behave in this outrageous and criminal
manner? Did she believe that she would
have been justified if the student journalist was assaulted or injured?
Fortunately, in this instance, there was video evidence of her behavior. What
would have happened if the video was not available?
There have been many cases in which
students have turned to violence, in order to keep invited speakers from
entering campus grounds. Milo Yiannopoulos, an admittedly controversial
individual, was greeted by
rioters on his way to deliver a speech at Berkley. However, in the case of
Charles Murray, a respected researcher and well known political scientist whose
only crime has been to express carefully researched ideas, Middlebury
College became the site of rioting and mayhem, without any sort of
reasoning or justification. The violent response was egged on by some of the
faculty, but it turns out that neither the faculty nor protesting students has
actually read any of Mr. Murray’s work. Their actions were based purely on rumors,
assumptions and ignorance. One of the faculty members accompanying Mr. Murray
was attacked by the rioters and required hospitalization. Is this the
“tolerance” which is championed by the very people that wish to silence anyone
accused of “hate”?
The repression of this extreme
political correctness is constantly evolving. A perfect example of this
repressive behavior is a recent incident in which a student of Latin-American
origin publicly denounced “white girls” for wearing hoop earrings, which
in her mind are associated with ghettos and poor people of color. She
described this as “cultural appropriation” on the part of white women. This may
seem like the righteous indignation of members of a victimized minority: however,
upon the most
rudimentary research it’s discovered that hoop earrings have no connections
whatsoever to slavery, ghettos, or any particular ethnic group. Even well-known
comedians, whose names are household items, have
been avoiding college campuses out of the fear that they may inadvertently
cause offense and set off a riot.
As can be imagined, given the
seemingly hair trigger temper of overly sensitive college students, free and
open academic discussion has taken a severe blow. Academia should be the one
place where everything is open to discussion, and all opinions are respected. If
debate is constrained and only certain opinions are permissible, then society
becomes as stagnant and monolithic as certain repressed nations
where the entire society is based upon fanatical interpretations of Islam.
The current climate of repression
has been developing for many years, at least thirty-five years given the
copyright date of Professor Bloom’s work. If the current batch of students was
born to those on college campuses during the 1980’s, what sort of people will
be raised by the current students? It is a frightening thought that future
generations may become even worse. Some
schools are fighting back against this repression of speech, but it may be
too little and too late.
There is another issue which must be
considered. What happens when these violence prone students attempt to enter
the workforce? One of the hallmarks of America’s greatness has been the
unrestricted creativity and ingenuity of the public. That creativity which has
kept America great is now jeopardized and is in danger of disappearing. There
is not an easy solution to this problem; it has taken decades to develop and it
will take decades to correct. However, for the sake of the nation, and the success
of future generations, society must recognize the inherent danger this
phenomenon of repressive thoughts and behaviors represents.