In my book, The Indispensable Right, I discuss how an enforced orthodoxy has replaced free speech and intellectual diversity in higher education. As suggested in prior columns, the intolerance for opposing views will only increase after the election. Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton (Mass.) has already learned that lesson after suggesting the need for greater diversity of opinion in the party and the reconsideration of issues like transgender athletic policies. The response was fast and furious, including from a department head at Tufts University.
Many of us have been writing about that intolerance for years, but while belated, it is good to see a Democratic member acknowledging the problem. It took the loss of both houses of Congress, the White House, and the popular vote, but the belated recognition from long-silent Democrats is a welcomed sign.
After the election losses, Moulton told The New York Times that it was time for greater reflection within the party, including on the issue of transgender policies: “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete.” He later added in a WBZ-TV interview that “this is an example of a contentious issue that we have to be willing to take on as a Democratic Party . . . we’re losing on issues like this.”
Democratic politicians and pundits immediately confirmed his criticism with a signature flash mob pile-on. Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey denounced Moulton for “playing politics” with the lives of transgender citizens.
Former staffers and interns demanded the usual public confession and apology from a dissenter. One top aide resigned rather than work with Moulton.Steve Kerrigan, Chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, expressed outrage and declared “these comments do not represent the broad view of our Party.”That broad view clearly does not include dissenting viewpoints.
This is clearly a debate that triggers intense feelings, including how it is discussed. The Tufts controversy follows a CNN contributor being chastised on air as a bigot and “transphobe” after he also raised objections on the issue by referring to “boys” playing girl sports. CNN commentator Shermichael Singleton rephrased his comments after the heated objections from other guests.
At Tufts University, the chair of the political science department, David Art, went with the “no soup for you” option for Moulton. Art declared that Moulton would be cut off from student internships in the future due to his statements. While refusing to confirm statements made about Moulton to the faculty, he reportedly told the Boston Globe that Tufts would not facilitate such internships, even if Moulton and the students wanted them.
The Globe described Art as “evasive” but quoted him as saying, “I definitely said other things in addition to that.”
Moulton struck out at Tufts, saying that the move is “frightening [and] sounds like China.” Once again, it would have been good if Moulton had shown a modicum of concern over the last decade as the mob was running professors out of universities or canceling events.
However, allies are hard to find in the Democratic party.
I understand objections to how these athletes are referenced. Those objections can be made in the course of a discussion without leveling charges or sanctions against those with opposing views.
Tufts eventually countermanded the policy of the political science department and wrote on X that “we have not–and will not–limit internship opportunities with his office.”
There was, however, one thing missing from the Tufts statement. There was no indication that Art or his department would face any repercussions or review for announcing a type of political litmus test for internships. It suggested that any members taking the same position would also be barred from internships. It was a direct attack on free speech and diversity of viewpoints, but the university simply responded by saying that there is “nothing to see here.”
While Professor Art clearly consulted with colleagues, it is not clear if conveying the views of his department in seeking to sanction Moulton. The assumption is that others in the department supported his position. It is a familiar pattern for those of us who have challenged this orthodoxy for years. Academics enforce a group-think culture that allows for little challenge or criticism.
That is only likely to increase after this election. There is no evidence any real effort to restore a diversity of viewpoints or tolerance on faculties. The mistake made at Tufts was to be so open about it. However, that only demonstrates the level of anger within academia at the results of the election.
The academy can then return to its previous lock-stepped orthodoxy. Indeed, the Tufts Political Science Department was spotted this week heading to another faculty meeting:
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, 2024).
What is puzzling to me is that they even adopted the crazy ideology in the first place. Seriously, they wanted to debate if males who dressed as women were actually women?
Here’s a free-speech question. Maybe the good professor could address it one day when he’s bored with showcasing the most outrageous recent behavior on the left.
ANTI-LOBBYING LAW: GOVT. POLICY ADVOCACY IS PUBLIC DOMAIN
What can be done to force lobbyists to heel, so that government is serving us instead of special interests?
This is the key to having common sense policies adopted instead of thwarted out of view and earshot of the public.
The idea is to pass legislation establishing a new framework for lobbying: it is obliged to take place in the public domain.
This means that any and all “asks” must be published in advance of any closed meeting or private communication. Under this law, it would be illegal for a government official to listen to a proposal that hasn’t been 100% aired publicly on the internet with full attribution of the party doing the asking. Both the lobbyist and govt. officer would be liable under the law for skirting public domain rules.
Under this new framework, we can expect the powerful interests to better align their asks with the public interest since the veil of secrecy has been stripped away.
Question: K Street lawyers will bellow that “free speech” rights include private messaging with the govt. The counter-argument is that forcing the speech to be public domain only increases the audience reach of the speech — it is not dictating what can or can’t be said. The important point is that government serves the public interest, and private interests must therefore reconcile their needs with the public interest when asking for govt. help.
Comments?
Wholesale elimination or drastic downsizing of government agencies, along with moving as many as possible far away from DC, per Musk’s published plan, would be a damned good start toward disenfranchising the lobbyists. Part of their power results from their concentrated presence there. And the root of the problem is not lobbyists who seek to corrupt officials so much as it is officials who can be corrupted, or even seek it out. Imprisoning a few of those, and axing more, would help discourage those practices.
* lobbyists should be simply required to attend open committee meetings … make their case.
Republicans and Democrats actually agree with each other on one topic: the United States has been heading in the wrong direction.
Politicians pitting and dividing citizens against one another has made the divisiveness even worse.
States like Maine may have a better model to study. These states have instituted “Ranked Choice” election ballots, especially for primary elections. In this system every winner of every election is popular with voters regardless of party.
In Ranked Choice Voting, every voter has the opportunity to vote for every candidate ranking them from favorite to least favorite. If the top candidate doesn’t receive 51%, the least favorite candidate is removed. This process continues until a candidate has 51%.
The net result is voters receive candidates highly popular with voters of all parties and less extreme candidates. Politicians dividing Americans only benefits China, Russia, North Korea, and other adversaries. Follow Maine’s model.
Just more proof of what tyranny would have been unleashed had they been able to maintain power in the Oval Office and the Senate. These people are the true “threats to democracy.”
* Professor Turley, friends and countrymen, this blog is rough, uncivil language and has name calling and swearing 🤬.
The vast majority of commenters here are MAGA cult members.
They are simply following the example set by the cult leader, Donald Trump.
This behavior is required for continued membership in the cult.
The entire article is about an actual cult that demands obedience, odd that that point was missed by you.
How ironic.
It takes a double digit IQ to not recognize it.