Well, I happen to find his position more appealing (personally) than, say... the usual opinions of Charles Murray or Steve Sailer. Granted. I like and respect Paul Krugman enormously-- but knowing how liberal he leans is pretty important for evaluating his op-ed pieces, no matter how inclined I am to agree with him.
(This assumes that all that was written was
true, and that may not be so, either-- in fact, in light of what I know FIRE's usual tactics to be, I think it may have gained a thing or two in the retelling-- I've not fact-checked any of it, just posted it for consideration).
I'm cautioning because
I've seen the undercarriage of this particular bus, too.There IS such a thing as free speech rights being
used by the majority to kick those who are already down, just so that the majority can continue doing exactly as they please, and enjoy unfettered access to the privilege that they have enjoyed all their lives-- and that can feel, well-- pretty hostile. Consider the recent public kerfuffles in a lot of locations re: religious displays at Christian holidays. Why it should be offensive for a cashier to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" in December is beyond me, but it certainly angers a fair number of people. Now,
that's majority entitlement. The interesting trick, in my mind, is making one's self out to be an Embattled Martyr to the Cause while
actually being a member of the established majority. It's fascinating.
This isn't as simple as impaneling an Officially Diverse Committee to Determine What Constitutes Hate Speech. It's also a matter of when individual rights give way to civil compromises in the name of the social contract. Er-- assuming that there IS a social contract, I mean.
Christakis apparently believes that he has a lock on truth here, but the fact is that he might not feel quite so sure of himself at a historically black college, a BlackLivesMatter rally, an inner city junior high school, etc. He might even feel-- gasp--
intimidated. By the words/behaviors of others, even.
He ignores the fact that some things are pretty much BOUND to cause discomfort like that to some students at his institution-- students who already feel pretty alienated from the vast, privileged majority who are attending that fine institution.
He fancies that he's being Patrick Henry, I'm sure-- but what if he's actually being Joe McCarthy? There is such a thing as tyranny by majority, and it's why we've got laws to protect, say, disabled children while they are at school, minority voting rights, disgusting hiring practices directed toward women, etc. Those laws exist so that the majority don't do the kinds of things featured in
Lord of the Flies, I mean. Otherwise, a certain percentage of the average population
will do those kinds of things. Social Darwinists don't see it that way-- they think that kind of construct is just fine. It
does self-correct, as history demonstrates. Of course, it's a bit messy, and the timescale is sometimes longer than the people living it like. But what the heck. It's the free market for a better society. Let everyone shout and see who shouts loudest, I guess. Buckle up, because that kind of world is where only the strong (and already privileged) survive-- at least until the unwashed masses have had enough, that is.
Context is everything. I think (personally) that it is critical to recall that the entire thing is mostly a tempest in a teapot, (or maybe just an ivory tower) given that ALL of them are speaking from positions of power, prestige, and yes--
privilege. Christakis is defending HIS OWN privilege, when you get right down to it. Nobody in that video has much claim to so-called "coveted victim status" at all in the first place. On either side.
It'd also be nice if more college professors
and students understood that their own words and actions have an impact on others, and that sometimes others are vulnerable in ways they don't understand (because of their own privilege or just excessive navel-gazing). I mean that in
every sense of that statement.
Sure. Everyone has freedom of speech in the US. What
nobody has is the freedom from the social consequences of that speech. Not even those defending unfettered free speech. Sometimes words
do cause actual harm to others. Defending that with "But MY RIGHTS!!" generally makes one a jerk. I happen to believe that being a decent human being trumps my innate right to say whatever I please in any location, at any time, etc. I kind of figure that jokes about some things are going to result in a highly unpleasant afternoon for myself if I make them in a TSA line, for example-- and that furthermore, the disruption that I've caused in that setting might actually HURT OTHER PEOPLE who actually needed for their afternoons to be disruption-free. Freedom OF speech. Yes. But not freedom from the consequences of it, nor from the fact that sometimes other people are collateral damage if I exercise that right injudiciously and selfishly.
