One of the skill sets of the anti-free speech movement has been the art of faux outrage. Pundits will often adopt a tortured meaning of a statement, an obvious joke, or take some misstatement and go into vapors on social media. That pattern has repeated itself with National Review editor-in-chief Rich Lowry, who was just canceled by Indiana State University under the common excuse of “safety concerns.”Lowry was scheduled to speak on the “Lessons from Lincoln” as well as contemporary politics and media.The use of the safety rationale by ISU raised long-standing concerns over viewpoint intolerance on campuses.We have previously discussed this common rationalization for barring conservative or libertarian speakers. No such concerns seem to arise with speakers who are from the far left at universities, including speakers who regularly engage in intentional inflammatory racial language.Lowry had a verbal slip in an interview on the word “migrant” when he sounded like he used an “n” rather than a “m.” He immediately corrected himself. No one who knows Lowry would suggest anything intentional or that this respected commentator was somehow using a code for the “n-word.”
“On Megyn Kelly’s show, I was discussing the Springfield, Ohio, controversy, and, in the course of saying ‘Haitian migrants,’ I started to mispronounce the word ‘migrants.’ I began to say it with a short ‘i,’ the way you say ‘immigrants,’ instead of the long ‘i’ that you use for ‘migrants.’ I caught myself in the middle, before shifting to the correct pronunciation.”
I understand that people will disagree on this. The mispronunciation was heard by some as the “n-word.” The problem is the unwillingness to consider an innocent explanation. Instead, the usual flash mob immediately formed of hyperventilating hypocrites who rarely criticize intentional race baiting and rage rhetoric on the left.
When people on the left or the right have these moments (particularly when they immediately correct themselves), I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. I find that more plausible than assuming that someone is a raving racist. Moreover, there is a sharp difference in the consequences for such controversies.
Yet, the level of deference over such slips seems to depend greatly on where a speaker is on the political spectrum. We have discussed academics, experts, and commentators engaging in openly racist commentary.
There is also a double standard maintained by the media. There was a feeding frenzy when Trump referred to protecting “black jobs” but nary a peep of objections when Biden (who also attacked Trump for the reference) used the same claim of protecting “Black jobs” in a later speech. Defenders on the left said that it was just a slip of the tongue.
How is this for an idea: Lowry insists that he was not using this word, so allow him to speak and he can address the controversy.
In this case, ISU immediately cancelled the event, citing the ever-convenient concern for “safety.” It announced:
“Indiana State University prioritizes the safety of our students, campus community, and all invited speakers. In light of recent developments and following the advice of our public safety officials regarding campus and community safety concerns, we have made the decision to cancel Rich Lowry’s scheduled appearance on September 30 as part of the Indiana State University Speaker Series.
In accordance with university policy, this decision is consistent with our commitment to maintaining a secure environment and ensuring the well-being of our students, faculty, staff, and the greater Terre Haute community. … We are actively working to identify opportunities to invite a speaker with a proven history of promoting intellectually diverse viewpoints to the Speaker Series, which will be announced at a later date.”
What the university clearly does not “prioritize” is maintaining a diversity of viewpoints or an environment of free speech. Lowry is one of the most popular commentators and the head of a leading conservative publication.
Lowry immediately corrected the pronunciation mid-word and said later that it was nothing more than a slip of the tongue. The question is whether that is enough to cancel a nationally recognized speaker.
Lowry responded with a column headlined: “Next Time Cancel Me for Something I Actually Said” and noted that he was later cancelled at a second event:
“It pains me to say I’ve also been canceled by the Badger Institute, the right-of-center think tank in Wisconsin. The president called on Tuesday to ask me to withdraw from an address at an upcoming dinner, and when I refused and asked him what I’d done wrong, he only said something or other about ‘the environment.’ When I flatly asked him whether he was disinviting me, he said, ‘Yes.’
Cowardice is contagious.”
This is a public university supported by a state with a majority of conservative and independent voters. Rather than accept the immediate correction, the university has cancelled Lowry’s appearance. It is the common hair-triggered response that we have seen with conservative figures on campuses.
As I have previously written, the recent FIRE ranking on free speech shows that the lowest-ranking schools tend to be private universities, which are not subject to the full protections of free speech under the First Amendment. Conversely, the top performers this year are, notably, all public universities — Michigan Technological University, Auburn University, the University of New Hampshire, Oregon State University, and Florida State University.
The fact is that the better performance of public universities likely reflects compulsion rather than agreement for many faculty. Public universities must protect free speech as a matter of law.
The result, however, is a startling and growing divide among private and public universities. For parents and students who value free speech, they must increasingly look to public universities where faculty are subject to constitutional guarantees. In the same way, public universities may be the final line of defense for free-speech advocates.
The use of “safety concerns” has largely succeeded in many past instances to shield cancel campaigns, particularly at public universities. However, courts may have to adopt a more serious review into any ideological patterns in the use of this rationalization.
The lack of accountability is ridiculous. Stop being a hypocrite. The would respect you people a lot more if you were just honest. He said what he said now he has to have CONSEQUENCES. Something a lot on the right need to learn.
And if the same standard were applied to both sides of the aisle, you might have a credible point.