I previously criticized the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) for selecting Todd Wolfson as its new president. Wolfson is a controversial voice within the teaching academy and immediately doubled down on the bias against conservatives and those calling for greater intellectual diversity. He is now decrying the election and publicly joining the resistance to the Trump Administration.
Some of us have been writing for years about the decline in viewpoint diversity and the rise of an academic orthodoxy in higher education. It is one of the focuses of my new book, The Indispensable Right. Wolfson personifies the intolerance for free speech and diversity of viewpoints that now characterize American higher education.
Despite calls for greater tolerance, AAUP elected Wolfson, a Rutgers University anthropologist, who was viewed as an ally for those who oppose intellectual diversity in favor of ideological orthodoxy in higher education.
Wolfson is the author of “Digital Rebellion: The Birth of the Cyber Left.” He was known to be openly hostile to those of us who have criticized the purging of faculty ranks of conservatives, libertarians, and dissenters.
Unlike others who try to maintain the pretense of neutrality and tolerance, Wolfson is viewed by some of us as a true believer who supports the activism and orthodoxy in higher education.
It took Wolfson little time to confirm our worst expectations. He issued a statement denouncing the Trump and GOP victories as “disappointing,” dismissing any possibility that he should speak for all academics, including the dwindling number of Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and independents who voted for the GOP.
Before the election, Inside Higher Ed reported that Wolfson called JD Vance a “fascist.”
On November 7th, he stated:
“While the results of this presidential election are disappointing, we remain steadfast in our commitment to our principles and ensuring that future generations of Americans are afforded the opportunity that higher education provides.
…The AAUP is committed to defending our campuses and the mission of higher education through organizing our communities to face the challenges ahead. Our collective power is needed now more than ever.”
Wolfson declared, “[t]here are massive political intrusions coming on, coming at us around academic freedom. There’s no way to be a neutral arbiter. We must stand for things in this environment.”
Kelly Benjamin, media relations officer for AAUP, also confirmed to Campus Reform that “the growth of repressive forces in American society, much of which is visible on the campus itself, is a source of continuing and acute alarm to the American Association of University Professors…We call on the academic community to resist all public & private assaults against this principle.”
As my book discusses, the AAUP was once the bastion of free speech and academic integrity values. It opposed the invasion of politics into higher education. However, it has become captured by the same forces that have converted our campuses into intolerant spaces for many faculty and students.
Wolfson has been widely criticized for AAUP’s decision to reverse its long-standing opposition to academic boycotts, which is viewed as targeting Israeli institutions. This move is clearly part of his strategy to make AAUP even more of a “fighting organization,” and he has insisted that “collective action of all sorts does not necessarily come into and undermine academic freedom.”
With declining enrollments numbers and revenue, figures like Wolfson are doubling down on the activisim and bias that have turned off many from higher education.
Wolfson’s election shows how the objections of so many to the lack of intellectual diversity and tolerance are having little impact on faculty. When elected officials threaten reductions in support, these same academics are outraged by the attacks on higher education. Many offer perfunctory commitments to intellectual diversity while doing little to achieve it. As shown here, they are continuing to maintain and expand the culture that is suffocating our educational programs on every level.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Cognitive dissonance is at play here. Turley’s criticism of the AAUP for merely expressing an opinion is deeply ironic, given his claims about the lack of viewpoint diversity and academic freedom. If he genuinely cares about promoting diverse perspectives, why is he not calling out the conservative movement that seeks to dismantle DEI departments? DEI is fundamentally about fostering diverse viewpoints—hence the “Diversity” in DEI. Conservatives could have effectively leveraged DEI resources to advocate for their beliefs, yet they ignored this opportunity. It’s baffling that Turley decries leftist intolerance for viewpoint diversity while conveniently ignoring the conservative intolerance that calls for the censorship of ‘woke’ ideas and perspectives. The double standard is glaring.
Then he drops this gem,
“ Wolfson has been widely criticized for AAUP’s decision to reverse its long-standing opposition to academic boycotts, which is viewed as targeting Israeli institutions.”
Boycotts are a legitimate exercise of free speech. If some choose to support them, that’s their choice. Critiquing Israel is a valid expression of academic freedom, and using boycotts as a form of protest is equally permissible. There’s a misguided notion that any criticism of Israel must be prohibited—this is simply not the case. Criticism of Israel and its policies is entirely valid, as are calls for boycotts against them, because they are also viewpoints.
Republicans and conservatives have proved a significant intolerance toward viewpoint diversity, arguably more so than their liberal counterparts. This intolerance often manifests in a denial of viewpoints that challenge or critique the dominant narrative of American history, especially those that do not highlight the nation in a favorable tone. Such viewpoints may include discussions around systemic inequalities, historical injustices, or critiques of policies that have led to social division. Furthermore, there is a tendency among these groups to resist ideas that contradict the often-promoted notion of America as an exceptional nation, one that is inherently good and just, that stifles honest dialogue and limiting the scope of understanding surrounding the complexities of the nation’s past and present.
“Boycotts are a legitimate exercise of free speech.”
And so is Turley’s assertion that it was widely criticized. And so is the criticism itself, dum dum.
Stop your whining, ya little spastic bltch.
George – as is typical of the left – you engage in word games.
Absolutely the WORD diversity requires the reflection of many views.
But outside of idiots on the left even ordinary people know from experience that the D for diversity in DEI does not mean actual diversity – or atleast not ideological diversity.
Again as is typical of the left – you engage in 1984 newspeak where words ultimately mean whatever those in power wish them to mean today.
The D in DEI rpograms does not mean diversity – and that is a problem.
The I in DEI programs does not mean inclusion – and that is a problem.
Both are examples of left wing nut 1984 newspeak.
Colleges that emphasize DEI are increasingly homogenously left win, and minority focused – though only chosen minorities
Blacks – yes,
Asians no.
White no,
Hispanics – ummmm
conservatives no
gay – yes
Trans – H311 Yes
Heterosexuals – h311 not
All other sexual fetishes – h311 yes,
muslims – absoltely – despite hostility towards every other woke value.
The point is that the D in DEI does not mean diversity, and the I does not mean Inclusion.
jews, Asians, Whites, conservativves, heterosexuals, are not welcome in DEI world – diverseity and inclusion specifically does not include them.
That is bad – but the worst problem with DEI is that the E really does mean Equity – and Equity is the foundation of communism and socialism the greatest bloody failures in history.
Diversity, by its very definition, is about diversity. Attempting to reshape this concept to fit your narrative doesn’t change its essence. You cannot redefine it simply because you disagree with the idea.
The core purpose of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) is to champion a variety of perspectives and ensure that those perspectives are represented equally. This aligns perfectly with what Turley is arguing—focusing on ideas and viewpoints.
Your efforts to misinterpret this are transparent. You’re sidestepping the clear meaning of the words to twist them into something else.
John Say,
Great comment and what a way to own the slow and stupid one!
“Boycotts are a legitimate exercise of free speech. ”
They are when excercised by individuals.
They are NOT when imposed by the elites controlling some institution.
Who boycotted Bud Light ?
Individual consumers – that we very effective.
BTW that was much more than free speech it was economic freedom.
When PETA threatened to Boycott McD’s to get better conditions for chickens – the Threat was that CONSUMERS would cease buying McD’s products.
The left rarely seeks to persuade consumers to boycott something.
They take over institutions and then seek to leverage those institutions to boycott something.
The left is ALWAYS seeking to leverage power that is NOT their own, through taking over a tiny elite that hold that power.
Boycott israel if you wish – persuade others to boycott israel – as individuals as individual consumers.
Do not blackmail institutionas with threats of violence.
Talk about word games, it’s important to acknowledge the nuances of free speech, especially in the context of boycotts. Regardless of whether these actions are taken by individuals or organized groups, they still fall under the umbrella of free speech rights.
The act of boycotting is not something that is arbitrarily forced upon people; rather, it is a call or demand that anyone can make. This right extends to all individuals and groups, whether they are part of elite institutions or are grassroots organizations. They are within their rights to persuade others to join in a boycott against entities, such as Israel, or any other target of their choice.
Moreover, the nature of these organizations—be they educational, cultural, or economic—does not exempt them from advocating for or voicing a demand for a boycott. It is important to recognize that their institutional status does not impede their right to express opinions or rally support for their causes effectively. In the domain of advocacy and political expression, the freedom to call for a boycott is a fundamental component of participatory discussion.
Dismissing their rights simply because of their leftist beliefs does not negate their ability to exercise those rights.
” Critiquing Israel is a valid expression of academic freedom”
No it is a form of free speech.
“and using boycotts as a form of protest is equally permissible.”
No one is stopping YOU from boycotting anything.
But the left does not conduct REAL boycotts. They do not persuade individuals – usually consumers to leverage their market power.
The left SHAMES individuals and institutions, it blacmails individuals and institutions, it threatens more than boycotts – but violence if it does not get what it wants.
Nothing prevents ever student in academia from boycotting Israel or Bud Light.
“There’s a misguided notion that any criticism of Israel must be prohibited”
No such notion.
There is however an expectation that when critics are not rational then the critics can be called out, and criticized.
“Criticism of Israel and its policies is entirely valid”
Correct – such criticism is valid, it is also your right.
But it is only very rarely rational.
There is no moral, ethical or legal parity between Israel and terrorists.
You do not seem to grasp that your right to criticize – whehter Israel or anything else – does not create a right to be heard.
Students criticized Israel over the past year. Their criticisms as well as their methods of criticising – violence and destruction,
were heard and SOUNDLY REJECTED.
You got to criticize Israel and its policies – and the american psople as a whol either ignored your criticisms – or they reject them.
That is how free speech works.
You can organize all the boycotts you want – but you can not force people to join, agree or participate.
EFFECTIVE boycotts come from consumers – individuals.
And you must persuade them.
People were persuaded to boycott Bud Light.
They were not persuaded to boycott israel.
“because they are also viewpoints.”
So genocide against jews is a viewpoint.
It is not one that many people today are persuaded by.
No one is stopping you from critizing Israel or calling for boycotts.
You are free to do the above and more.
You are not free to use FORCE or threats of FORCE.
Further, just because you are free to do something does not mean you will succeed.
Your criticisms of israel were rejected by supermajorities of people.
“Critiquing Israel is a valid expression of academic freedom.”
No, it is a form of free speech.”
Same thing. It falls under the umbrella of free speech.
“ But the left does not conduct REAL boycotts. They do not persuade individuals – usually consumers to leverage their market power.
The left SHAMES individuals and institutions, it blacmails individuals and institutions, it threatens more than boycotts – but violence if it does not get what it wants.”
It’s irrelevant how it’s sought. It’s still free speech. You’re free to assume many things, but intentionally mischaracterizing them is disingenuous.
“ There is no moral, ethical or legal parity between Israel and terrorists.”
There certainly is. Israel is just as guilty of committing terrorist acts and even war crimes as Hamas. To try to dismiss it simply because it’s Israel is a poor excuse.
Israel deliberately censors news that paints it in a bad light, including when they commit atrocities that are very much acts of terrorism and war crimes.
“ You are not free to use FORCE or threats of FORCE.”
Nobody is calling for that. Ironically, republicans use force and threats of force by legislation.
“Critiquing Israel is a valid expression of academic freedom.”
No, it is a form of free speech.”
Same thing. It falls under the umbrella of free speech.”
No they are not the same thing. Academemic freedom is confined to colleges and universities. Tends to extend beyond speech and is NOT a right.
It does NOT generally extend to students.
It does NOT extend to K12 education.
It is not protected by law or the constitution.
Wrong. Critiquing Israel is undoubtedly an exercise of academic freedom and falls under free speech. Academic freedom means being free to exercise the discussion of controversial ideas and perspectives, just like CRT and even white supremacy without government infringement or punishent. Discussing Israel’s political flaws and current situation is well within the scope of academic freedom. Professors can write papers and opinions on the issue even if they are highly controversial or offensive.
It definitely extends to students. The right to exercise free speech does not stop because you’re a student. It applies to everyone who is within the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
Academic freedom is an exercise of free speech. Freedom of expression also falls under the First Amendment. Journalism, art, literature, and political science all fall under the protection of the Constitution. I’m not saying academic freedom is a right. It falls under the umbrella of free speech, a right.
Your attempt to exempt academic freedom as a stand-alone activity is wrong. Academic freedom relies on the protection of the First Amendment.
George Svelaz, you are ignorant of what constitutes free speech and what is forced speech. You are also ignorant of your surroundings. You don’t know the difference between self-defense and terrorism. You say things but cannot demonstrate that what you say is true. That is the sign of a jerk and troll.
We reviewed the facts before, but you knew nothing then, and now is the time to show yourself how ignorant you are. Start with the creation of the modern state of Israel. Do you know any of this? I told you before, hoping you could learn something and take it from there.
“When the Ottoman Empire broke up, portions of the Middle East were divided into Mandates. Some of the major countries of the time each got a piece of land, which, under specific laws, was to be divided up to become nation-states. That is how many of the countries were created and the boundaries settled. Therefore, each country created worked under the same international rules.
What happened to the British Mandate?”
Repetition may permit something to seep into your dense and stupid head.
“It’s irrelevant how it’s sought.”
Of course not.
The ENDS do not justify the means.
That is clearly a matter of personal opinion. A boycott is a legitimate expression of free speech, and everyone has the right to voice their disagreement. While you may disagree with some methods used to enable it, that does not make it fundamentally wrong.
” It’s still free speech.”
It is a right to boycott, free speech is generally a prerequiste
But NO Boycotts are NOT free speech.
“You’re free to assume many things, but intentionally mischaracterizing them is disingenuous.”
Correct – but I have not mischaracterized anything – and aside from your naked assertion above you have not claimed much less demonstrated that I have – intentionally or otherwise.
“It is a right to boycott, free speech is generally a prerequiste
But NO Boycotts are NOT free speech.”
It is undoubtedly free speech. A boycott is a form of protest and protected free speech activity.
“Correct – but I have not mischaracterized anything – and aside from your naked assertion above you have not claimed much less demonstrated that I have – intentionally or otherwise.”
There is no need to demonstrate when the truth is so obvious.
““ There is no moral, ethical or legal parity between Israel and terrorists.”
There certainly is. ”
Nope. You are free to spray nonsense.
But outside of left wing nuts you have no audience.
“Israel is just as guilty of committing terrorist acts and even war crimes as Hamas.”
Nope.
“To try to dismiss it simply because it’s Israel is a poor excuse.”
Correct, but not what I am doing.
Starting from the individual right of self defense through the rights of nations to defend themselves and their people,
We have through millennia of experience, we have established rules based on practicality and morality.
Those who initiate force are responsible for the consequences.
If you respond to a slight real or imagined with force, violence Those that you targets with violence have the RIGHT to self defense.
That right once triggered has few limits. If a person threatens you with death or serious bodily harm – you may KILL them.
If you commits an act of war against another nation – that nation is free to DESTROY you.
In war there is a rule of proportionality. (often violated). That rule – mostly misstated, allows the use of force – even against “innocent” people, when targeting the guilty, proportionate to the value of the target. A nation is NOT required to avoid innocent deaths in war when pursuing legitimate targets.
Further when the leaders of a people commit acts of war – the people are NOT given the presumption of innocence.
They are NOT innocent, they are merely noncombatants.
For milenia – we make a distinction between combatants and non-combatants based on things such as wearing uniforms.
It is a violation of international law – a CRIME to engage in war out of uniform – WHY ? Because when those at war with you can not tell combatants from non-combatants they MUST treat all as combatants. Terrorists are by definition those who commit acts of war OUTSIDE the international laws of war.
on 9/11/2001 the US was attacked by terrorists killing just under 3000, and in response we invaded two nations, and killed atleast 250,000 and probably close to 2M people nearly all non-combatants.
on 10/7/2023 Isreal was attacked by terroists killing just over 1000, so far the non-combatant causualties of the conflict are a small fraction of those of the US.
“Israel deliberately censors news that paints it in a bad light,”
so does Hamas – so what. ?
“including when they commit atrocities”
I am sure there have been attoricties committed – it is a WAR, There are always attrocities in both sides of a war.
That does not alter the fact that there is no moral parity.
When you commit an act of war – you lose the moral high ground, if you want it back- surrender.
“that are very much acts of terrorism”
Nope, terrosim is an act of war, but conducting war itself is not terrorism.
“and war crimes.” – with near certainty.
I have no problem prosecuting those Israelis that commit actual war crimes. Though I would not that killing noncombatants as part of combat operations is NOT a war crime.
Regardless war crimes does not change the the fact that moral parity does not exist.
“To try to dismiss it simply because it’s Israel is a poor excuse.”
Correct, but not what I am doing.”
That’s exactly what you are doing. Willful ignorance is a poor excuse.
John, boycotts are forms of protest protected as First Amendment activity. They do fall under the protection of free speech. You are free to disagree until you are blue; the facts are not on your side.
“ There is no moral, ethical or legal parity between Israel and terrorists.”
There certainly is. ”
Nope. You are free to spray nonsense.
But outside of left wing nuts you have no audience.
There is an audience, and Israel actively censors it and its supporters. Israel has depended too long on the excuse of self-defense while ignoring the fact that it is an occupying force. Israel is just as guilty of committing terrorist acts as Hamas is. The pager explosions are, by definition, terrorist acts. Deliberately targeting hospitals and schools under the excuse that Hamas is operating within them with no way to verify independently is not acting in self-defense.
Israel is committing far more than just actions of self-defense. It only does so because it has the backing of the U.S. as its only defense. If it did not have the support of the U.S., it would not be able to defend itself for long.
They do commit war crimes, and they are just as guilty of committing atrocities against innocent civilians. Making excuses for Israel’s actions no longer holds credibility.
“on 9/11/2001 the US was attacked by terrorists killing just under 3000, and in response we invaded two nations, and killed atleast 250,000 and probably close to 2M people nearly all non-combatants.
“
We invaded a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. We went beyond justice and engaged in nation building and lying about the justifications. We lost all crediblity when we did that and cost us trillions. Israel cannot afford to make similar mistakes and expect to come out on moral high ground.
” Israel cannot afford to make similar mistakes and expect to come out on moral high ground.”
Define the mistakes Israel made using verifiable facts rather than the typical George Svelaz stupidity. You can’t as proven multiple times. You have your chance, but you are a buffoon who knows nothing about the mideast.
You equate terrorism with defending oneself.
I would hate to be your wife because in a fight you would place her in front of you to shield and protect you. Why? Along with being stupid you are a coward.
““ You are not free to use FORCE or threats of FORCE.”
Nobody is calling for that.”
Correct, you are actually DOING it.
When you take over property that is not yours.
When you interfere with the liberty of others to attend classes or to make use of their college fascilities – you are using FORCE.
When you destroy property or harm people – you are using FORCE.
When you restist law enforcement that is seeking to restore control of property to its owners – you are illegitiimately using FORCE
“Correct, you are actually DOING it.
When you take over property that is not yours.
When you interfere with the liberty of others to attend classes or to make use of their college fascilities – you are using FORCE.
When you destroy property or harm people – you are using FORCE.
When you restist law enforcement that is seeking to restore control of property to its owners – you are illegitiimately using FORCE”
What does that have to do with boycotts? You are clearly deflecting. We are not discussing campus protests. I’m not doing anything.
” Ironically, republicans use force and threats of force by legislation.”
Not the least ironic.
Government – LAWS are the use of FORCE. ALWAYS.
The police are the use of FORCE,
FORCE is required to protect the actual rights of people.
Sometimes that is self defense,
Sometimes that is defense of others.
Sometimes that is the enforcement of the law by police, prosecutors, judges against those who violated the rights of others
That is literally the social contract.
The use of FORCE by govenrment is legitimate or illegitimate depending on whether that use of force is to protect the actual rights of others.
“It’s irrelevant how it’s sought. It’s still free speech. ”
Force does not constitute free speech.
” Israel is just as guilty of committing terrorist acts and even war crimes as Hamas. ”
Tell us any Terrorist acts by Israel. You can’t, not just because you are stupid but because they don’t happen.
The government investigates acts of individuals or groups leading toward terrorism.
You create an equivalence of self-defense by Israel to actual Hamas terrorism, where the intention is to kill Israeli or Gazan citizens.
What little brain you had seems to be disconnected from your mouth.
“Israel deliberately censors news that paints it in a bad light, ”
Israel censors news that can provide the enemy with advantages. You accept news from proven terrorist organizations proven to lie.
“Republicans and conservatives have proved a significant intolerance”
How so ?
Those of you on the far left are not being locked up for what you say.
You are allowed to be who you are.
The only restrictions that anyone has sought on you is on what you DO with the children of others.
That is not restrictions on viewpoint.
That is restrictions on conduct WITH OTHER PEOPLES CHILDREN.
Conversely – progressives are at most 20% of the country, they are outnumbered nearly 2:1 by conservatives.
Yet magically progressives make up 95% of academia – and in some cases 97% or more.
I thought those on the left thought numbers alone were PROOF of discrimination – intolerance.
” arguably more so than their liberal counterparts.”
Onve upon a time that MIGHT have been true – today you have to be brain dead to beleive that consrervatives are half as intolerant as those on the left.
“This intolerance often manifests in a denial of viewpoints that challenge or critique the dominant narrative of American history, especially those that do not highlight the nation in a favorable tone”
This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard – Conservatives are allegedly intolerant because they do not AGREE with YOUR viewpoint.
You are free to express your viewpoint – you have received MORE than tolerance.
No one is jailing you for your viewpoint.
No one is firing you from public employment for your viewpoint.
No one is weaponizing government to prosecute or censor you for your viewpoint.
Sorry George the intolerance is almost entirely one way.
I would note that this is all DESPITE the FACT that your NARATIVE of american history is a historical garbage.
To an enomrous extent history is FACT, not Viewpoint.
Your idiotic approach to history is to pretend that from far into the future you can mangle the FACTS to BADLY determine the INTENT – not just of a small number of actors, but of the nation and world at large.
You suck ate mind reading people that you bump into day to day.
Why would enyone believe you are comeptent to determine what is in the heads of people 400 years ago ?
“Such viewpoints may include discussions around systemic inequalities, historical injustices, or critiques of policies that have led to social division.”
First a fact and a view point are not the same thing
Next a viewpoint and a discussion are not the same thing.
You are free to have your own point of view
You are not free to have your own facts.
Nor are you free to demand that others respect or listen to your point of view.
NAZI’s are free to march through Skokie.
They are NOT free to teach genocide to other peoples children.
You are entitled to your oppinion
You are entitled to express it.
You are not entitled to have it respected or even listened too.
This election has established what most of us have know for a long time.
That the overwhelming majority correctly deems your opinion not worthy of respect or discussion.
You are free to hold it, to express it.
You are not free to teach it.
You are not free to censor others,
You are not free to impose your opinion through government.
We do not teach Fascism – atleast not as something deserving of respect.
Your viewpoint is a form of fascism.
It is ahistorical garbage.
It is mind reading.
It is a claim to use force to compel others to hold your view, rather than to persuade them.
“Furthermore, there is a tendency among these groups to resist ideas that contradict the often-promoted notion of America as an exceptional nation, one that is inherently good and just”
Correct – the historical EVIDENCE is that America IS exceptional. People NATURALLY resist ideas that are obviously false.
History is the story of the development of ideas and values. At any given point in history ONE culture often ONE Race, ONE nation has reflected the pinnacle of the answer to the question “how should we best live ?”.
That apex has over time moved from sumeria, to egypt to india, to china, to greece, to rome, to spain, to germany, to england and at the moment it rests with America.
NONE of these peoples, cultures, nations have been PERFECT.
Every single one has been EXCEPTIONAL in comparison to their peers at some period in history.
America will cease to be EXCEPTIONAL when some other people, nation, culture answers the question “how best shall we live ?” better than we have.
Ranting about the flaws of this country has SOME relevance – but it is pissing into the wind as an argument against american exceptionalism.
The period of american exceptionalism ends when some other nation, culture, people Better answers “How shall we best live ?” for a sustained period,
and NOT until then.
You want to discuss the imperfections of this countries past – be my guest.
But challenging the FACT of american exceptionalism is little different from challenging the FACT that at various times in the past other people, nations, cultures have in turn been the pinnacle – the EXCEPTIONAL nation of a specific era.
You can not wipe out american exceptionalism – or that of any other nation that was at the pinnacle for some period of history by highlighting its flaws.
Every past exceptional nation – had flaws – more flaws than american today.
The study of history is an understanding of how each of these EXCEPTIONAL peoples advanced the quality of human life in their era.
American is EXCEPTIONAL – because it embodies everything that made every prior exceptional people better than their predecessors and their peers,
while going BEYOND those exceptional people of the past.
We study the exceptional peoples of the past to learn how ewe got where we are. To learn what is required to answer the question “How should we best live” better than our predecessors.
“that stifles honest dialogue and limiting the scope of understanding surrounding the complexities of the nation’s past and present.”
No it does not.
No one has told you you can not discuss the sins of the past.
No one has told you even that you can not pretend this country today is not the current reflection of milenia or efforts by or predecessor exceptional people to live better than those and particularly the exceptional peoples of the past
You can SAY whatever you wish.
You can not demand that you be listened to or agreed with.
You can not demand that the rest of us stop rejecting your ahistorical garbage or your failed point of view.
You are under the delusion that because you are free to express your point of view,
that others must listen or accept it.
Worse still – beyond your challenge to american exceptionalism – your answer to “how should we best live ?” is a well documented historical FAILURE.
The ideas, and values of the left do NOT lead to improving our lives, they do not lead to improvement. They lead to decline.
History shows us that collectivism and statism underperform the maximum of individual liberty consistent with order. That not only do they underperform, but usually they FAIL, and all too often they lead to copious bloodshed.
I would suggest that you study the differences between the American and French Revolutions. The first lead to “american exceptionalism”, they lead to the US going from small and relatively weak colonies in a strange and undeveloped land to replacing the world sole superpower of the time. Conversely the french revolution however well intentioned lead to bloodshed, failure and regression to the past model of empire. Every single other revolution incorportating the same FLAWS as the french revolution ended in similar failure.
“The only restrictions that anyone has sought on you is on what you DO with the children of others.
That is not restrictions on viewpoint.
That is restrictions on conduct WITH OTHER PEOPLES CHILDREN.”
As usual, there’s a tendency to deflect the conversation. Conservatives often show intolerance toward the choices that others make regarding what is best for their children. This is evident in their push to ban certain books and influence medical decisions for families. They seem to believe they have the authority to dictate that everyone else should adhere to their values, insisting that those who choose differently should be denied the right to make their own decisions.
Moreover, it raises the question: when did it become acceptable for libertarians to allow just one or two parents to decide what is best for all children through government intervention? We are left wondering what happened to the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility. It seems these ideals are cast aside when conservatives struggle to accept that others may not share their values.
“You can not wipe out american exceptionalism – or that of any other nation that was at the pinnacle for some period of history by highlighting its flaws.
Every past exceptional nation – had flaws – more flaws than american today.”
Nobody is talking about wiping out American exceptionalism. The issue is that it is being used as an excuse to ignore the atrocities that came with it. Anything that would diminish the idea of exceptionalism is labeled unpatriotic or un-American because it brings shame or guilt. You cannot be deemed an exceptional nation if you cannot confront the realities of those atrocities and how they may still be relevant to this day.
Exceptionalism is in the eye of the beholder. Slavery is not an American exceptionalist virtue. It’s often whitewashed or diminished to minimize tarnishing the idea of exceptional America.
“No one has told you you can not discuss the sins of the past.”
Republicans and Conservatives do. They seek to ban, limit, and punish discussion of concepts like CRT or any ideas that make others “feel guilt or shame.”
“You can SAY whatever you wish.
You can not demand that you be listened to or agreed with.
You can not demand that the rest of us stop rejecting your ahistorical garbage or your failed point of view.”
That’s amusing because that’s how Turley defends speakers at colleges and Universities when they shout down a speaker or heckle. In fact, you defended the right to be heard in those discussions; now, do you contradict yourself?
Conservatives shy away from confronting the harsh realities of our nation’s past and the lingering impacts it has on society today. They fear being linked to or held accountable for these truths instead of understanding that discussing them is not about blame. In their avoidance of uncomfortable historical truths, they attempt to exclude these vital issues from national discourse and conceal them under the guise of patriotism. It’s time to face our history head-on rather than hide it away.
Is it possible to debate the actual issue without attacking the speaker? When you attack the speaker and manufacture inaccurate labels – it means you can’t debate the issue based on facts.
Instead of considering the other person’s point of view, you simply parrot talking points attacking the person instead. That’s not debate.
You are confusing “attack” with “criticism.” Criticizing Turley is entirely fair. Proposing a contrary opinion is simply sharing a different viewpoint. You seem to be offended by the idea that Turley can be critiqued for his twisting arguments.
“You are confusing “attack” with “criticism.””
You do that all the time.
” Criticizing Turley is entirely fair.”
NO, It is free speech.
There is no such thing as fair.
Whether it is a verbal ATTACK (as opposed to the use of FORCE) depends on the legitimacy of the criticism.
When you respond with Fallacies – like ad hominem – it is an ATTACK, not a criticism.
“Proposing a contrary opinion is simply sharing a different viewpoint. ”
Correct, but falsely maligning someone, or engaging in fallices is not just sharing a different viewpoint.
“You seem to be offended by the idea that Turley can be critiqued for his twisting arguments.”
No we are offended by ad hominem or other fallies rather than actual argument.
To Mika and Joe,
I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then, and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
The Constitution does not provide unions the right to threaten and commit violence. Unions and labor laws are unconstitutional. Americans are free to start a business or accept or reject employment. Unions have one element of leverage: Criminal violence. Unions exist to threaten and commit trespass, property damage, and physical injury. Labor laws merely facilitate trespass, property damage, and physical injury.
Americans enjoy the right “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Americans in unions have the right to quit work, but they have no right to commit violence or to trespass.
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional.
Unions are criminal organizations that must be extirpated along with so-called labor laws.
especially government employee unions – they pose a conflict of interest.
Chop off the beard, and he looks a bit like the “Man of Steel”, in his younger days…
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/headshot-portrait-of-young-russian-revolutionary-and-news-photo/3232325?adppopup=true
I think you are wrong with your critique of these morons. They do not want to censor people with differing opinions, they want to silence people that are “wrong”. I have seen many debates on both sides about the need the need for critical thinking – which is needed (always on the other side in most debates). I am sure this d1psh1t would argue MAGAs are incapable of critically thinking and are spreading wrong and dangerous information. This leads to a somewhat lost observation about communism (it is still mentioned in wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes) – these idiots are fanatically certain they are right. This fanatical certainty leads to all sorts of bad policy and acts, including censorship. These fanatics need to be ridiculed and dismissed as the morons they are.
He’s a smug looking fellow.
I think this is great. All apart of the leftist Democrats doubling down or tripling down on their failed policies. More and more sane and normal Americas, as evident by the election, are rejecting woke leftism. Enrollment is on the decline at these indoctrination camps as younger people no longer see the value in spending their money to get indoctrinated. They are opting for vocational schools where upon graduation, they can be debt free and have a well paying job that gives them as sense of accomplishment. We also need to promote paid internships and accredit the student/intern. By pass the so called higher education indoctrination camps and make them irrelevant. Only by hitting their bottom line will they go back to actually teaching.
Obviously, for some people the learning curve is a grease slathered vertical pole.
Dear Mr. Turley, my guess is that Mr. Wolfson has never ventured into a communist country to witness the destruction caused by that system of government. If he would take the time and read up on Russia and China, he would soon learn the Intellectuals, like himself, were some of the first sent to re-education camps.
The Soviet Union sent 20,000 intellectuals into the Katyn Forest.
They didn’t come out again.
The left has long been a refuge for the least intelligent among the well educated.
Perhaps I have missed it Jon, but I think everyone who follows your blog would love to hear your take on President-elect Trump’s cabinet choices and the now concerted effort to avoid Senate confirmations via recess appointment. Thank you.
https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/0c4c3305e703ce5b9936a2b79b74fca3
Bahahah, a picture is worth a thousand words…
LOL. LMAO, even. Sad.
Yep, you missed it spastic. Take another look back.
Hey Jeff the Dumbshit, Turley doesn’t read this blog. Contact him by email. We don’t care to listen to you whine.
…, he whined.
For sometime our schools have been infected by these people, now with the new administration it’s time to inoculate our society from these people.
The leverage that Trump has is grants/funding/guaranteed student loans/ foreign visas etc. You can’t fix the broken progressive minds but we do not have to fund their insanity. Hit them in the pocket and deny them taxpayer dollars for their insanity. They are free to shout into the wind all their nonsense, but not on the taxpayer’s dime. Hit them where it will hurt the most.
AAUP. Who cares? In a decade there will be at least a 20% further drop in higher education enrollment. No institution deserves it more.
Wolfson’s intransigence will only serve to raise the sails of the new University of Austin, as the woke ship of the AAUP slips into the whirlpool of irrelevance. Sail on!
Another academic (shorthand for “I can’t make it in the real world!”) who’s trying to build a brand, while pretending to be relevant. Here, your motto applies specifically to him.
Let these radical socialist/progressive types deal with a ‘sanction’ on taxpayer’s funding of their anarchic whining. No one is denying their right to spew all the nonsense they choose, but not on the public dime; and that is the disconnect with these types. They actually think that tenure can protect them from public opinion when it comes to grants, subsidies for tuition, construction of facilities etc. It is time for governments to stop enabling these rabble rousers through tax dollars. If a professor truly feels that America is hateful, that is his/her choice but do not count on continued underwriting of your hate with my money.
One can only hope that at some time in the near future Mr. Wolfson does indeed have a close encounter with a real fascist/nazi. It would probably be illuminating to him as well as painful. One would hope that he would then come to realize that most of the people he brands with those names are just normal folks but I suspect he would never be able to make that mental leap.
In a way, I kind of hope he never figures it out because my truest yearning is than he leads College level American Education to total and complete self destruction, especially that subset that inhabits the upper northeast of our country. It is especially rabid and unreasoning. Once there is only the debris of that educational fiasco of progressive/marxist thought left, it can cleared away into a toxic dump and a new and more fruitful Educational model can be built.
time to END Federal Aid and loan backing to colleges, cities, states, non-profits
also ban public unions
let Democrats fund their OWN failures!
Hear, hear!
Good call on Wolfson! His photo looks like it could be next to “Communist” or “Fascist” in the dictionary as a typical specimen.
* I haven’t read Wolfson’s book nor am I familiar with his area of expertise. Perhaps one of his books is at a thrift store for 1.10 if I’m willing to read a cyber bully at all.
M
* There are good interviews to meet this person. Hestrained as a social cultural anthropologist a very interesting field of study. He’s now an associate professor of journalism at Rutgers. First blush is he’s interested in using cyber space as a means of directing social and cultural changes.
He took a glance at NAFTA’s effect on a group of corn farmers in Chiapas , Mexico for instance. The culture , way of life and the farms of this Indian group were in jeopardy until brought to light. It’s really a firm of disruptive innovation.
It can be supposed Mr. Wolfson takes the side of protecting the English culture in the UK as it too is in danger by an migration into it’s islands
* He’s a trained social cultural anthropologist and currently an associate professor of journalism. The cyber journalism is focused on the poor without a voice. He wants to “flatten” out those opportunities horizontally presumably to preserve and protect impoverished ways of life from an anthropology perspective.
I’m down with that…
* social cultural anthropologist teaching cyber journalism to protect endangered cultures. Meh