My anonymous friend at the University of Texas has issues with yesterday’s post. Here’s his critique. Enjoy!
I respectfully disagree with Bryan’s recent post on anti-Communism and “anti-racism.” I believe he falls into a classic false equivalence trap; just because two things sound similar does not make them fundamentally similar. For example, slicing someone’s stomach open with a rusty knife to try to cure a cold is unquestionably a bad idea. Surgery in a sterile hospital to remove stomach cancer is, on the other hand, a reasonable treatment option. Colds and stomach cancer are both illnesses, and both treatment options involve slicing open one’s abdomen, but the similarities really end there.
Similarly, neither the problem being addressed not the proposed solutions discussed by Bryan have anything more than superficial parallels. The historic loyalty oaths and anti-Communist pledges were generally narrowly tailored and required people to affirm that they did not belong to an organization that sought to overthrow the U.S. government in favor of a totalitarian socialist state. Indeed, they only sought to exclude people who were actively seeking to bring about a system where no one who disagreed with that system would be allowed to express his ideas. There is little evidence that these measures, which were put into place in response to a now-documented effort to take over institutions by foreign influenced revolutionary organizations, were routinely used to exclude left-wing voices from universities.
Indeed, leaders of actual murderous revolutionary Communist organizations in the U.S. were hired at prestigious universities; Northwestern Law even hired such a leader who literally supported the Charles Manson murders. These people and their supporters in many cases then took the lead in suppressing any dissent from their ideas at universities. I do not think it is reasonable to malign those who anticipated this threat and tried to take steps that might have helped preserve universities as a place where free exchange of ideas was remotely possible.
The modern “anti-racism” movement, in contrast, seeks to exclude any ideas that reject their specific description of society and the policies that they seek to bring about in light of their views of how society works. They seek to exclude as “racist” anyone who rejects their fundamental tenets, and they seek to use state resources to support specific political advocacy. For example, our cultural diversity requirement can be satisfied through a class having a required “activism project.” There is no legitimate parallel between those who sought to prevent universities, particularly public universities, from becoming tools of an extremist political movement that sought to suppress all dissent, and those today who seek exactly to turn universities into such a state-funded political tool under the guise of “anti-racism.” Here at UT-Austin, in fact, we have just imposed a “Strategic Plan for Faculty Diversity, Equity and Inclusivity” that requires every faculty hiring and promotion decision to take into account and treat as a positive advocacy efforts for this ideological agenda.
It is absolutely crucial that people begin to understand and appreciate the importance of these distinctions. Any effort to reign in the excesses permeating state universities will lead to hypocritical cries of suppression of free expression and academic freedom. But, the “anti-racist” faction has claimed the right to dictate to every single school, department, and individual faculty member that promotion of this new ideology is an essential part of the job of every unit and employee of the university. Undoing this situation would be striking a blow for academic freedom, not suppressing it. University bureaucrats under pressure from faculty activists have no right to direct, say, the chemistry department to hire in part based on political advocacy. Individuals and even departments, however, have virtually no means to stand against such demands, since they come from the central administration and also come with thinly veiled threats of attacks from activists if the directives are questioned. Thus, trustees and where appropriate legislators have a responsibility to undo the current arrangement at universities, and false equivalences like those laid out in Bryan’s post make fulfilling that responsibility even harder.
READER COMMENTS
Benjamin Hoffman
May 4 2021 at 10:47am
The relevance of the Manson murders is somewhat unclear, as they seem to have been a CIA project.
Daniel Klein
May 4 2021 at 10:52am
That’s a great follow-up and I thank the author for it.
But, in an a fortiori way, it doesn’t undo the excellence of Bryan’s original post. It adds to Bryan’s devastating comparison.
The anonymous author is saying to Bryan: You slander anti-communism.
Benjamin Hoffman
May 4 2021 at 10:54am
Seems to me like the data are most elegantly explained as follows: In the 20th Century large parts of the US regime were successfully infiltrated by Communists. Their commitment to the appearance of institutional continuity resulted in a lower domestic body count than that of the “Bolshevik” regime but we’re still living with their legacy, a mostly lawless state where debate has been replaced by (comparatively polite, civilized) purges.
Julian
May 4 2021 at 10:58am
I see political gains to be made for any politician ambitious enough to take this issue head-on: Require greater ideological neutrality from universities that take federal funds. Some red states already do that. This would be a winner for any Republican candidate willing to just pick it up and run with it.
——————-
Off-topic, but can anyone direct me to the article where Bryan showed how US corporations were more efficient in their management than Greek and other companies? I’ve been looking for it for a while, but can’t find it. Thanks.
Mark
May 4 2021 at 11:52am
Ideally, there should be no federal funding of universities at all. I would be concerned about the government conditioning funding on the university or any other organization taking or rejecting a particular ideological stance. There is no such thing as ideological neutrality and even if there were such a thing it should not be up to the government to judge what it is.
Julian
May 4 2021 at 12:25pm
Well, if the university in question chooses to forgo the funds rather than change its hiring practices, for example, then I’d also consider that a win for fiscal conservatives and small-government advocates, making such a policy a win-win.
Mark Z
May 4 2021 at 2:20pm
If there’s no such thing as ideological neutrality, then there’s no such thing as separation of church and state, and the case against theocracy largely falls apart. Philosophically, you’re right that there’s no absolutely neutral position, but when it comes to religion, we’ve been fairly successful as a society at establishing a norm more or less accepted as neutral by different worldviews. I think it’s worth aspiring to have the same norm regarding politics. If one thinks an institution shouldn’t (and shouldn’t require its employees to) take a stand on the transubstantiation of the eucharest, the existence of God, etc., that some sense of neutrality is possible and desirable in religion, I think the same can be said about political questions. That many of the same people who deny institutional or state neutrality is possible in matters of politics do an about-face and defend the absoluteness of the wall of separation on religion, and religious tolerance at the institutional level, suggests to me that they don’t really believe we can’t have some kind of reasonable neutrality norm in politics. They just don’t want one.
Julian
May 4 2021 at 10:33pm
Yeah, by “ideological neutrality”, I don’t mean a professor can’t have ideological leanings in class and express, or anything regarding academics. I just mean the university body can’t discriminate in hiring on ideological basis (for example, by running blatant purity “diversity” tests on applicants). They’d also have to allow speakers and visitors and groups across all the ideological spectrum, except the most extreme ones calling for violence.
Mark
May 4 2021 at 11:47am
Is the issue narrowness? How would this person feel about a similarly narrow anti-racist pledge that required all hires to affirm that they don’t belong to any organization that sought to overturn the current university administration policies?
Taking diversity efforts into consideration in hiring and promotions isn’t unreasonable. Every organization I’ve worked for has taken “firm citizenship” into account in reviews, which can include things like recruitment and mentoring. It’s reasonable for “firm citizenship” to include diversity efforts, which are mostly anodyne things like recruiting and helping to retain minority employees.
Mark Z
May 4 2021 at 2:24pm
I mean, by diversity it seems you mean discriminating in favor of people of certain races. I think it’s reasonable for one to oppose that. It certainly isn’t anodyne for the people who don’t get or lose jobs because of it.
MarkW
May 4 2021 at 3:55pm
…which are mostly anodyne things like recruiting and helping to retain minority employees.
My Motte and Bailey detector just went off.
MarkW
May 6 2021 at 10:25am
Here’s a decidedly non-anodyne thing — UVA putting a medical student through a Kafkaesque disciplinary process and then ultimately expelling him for the thought crime of publicly questioning the definition of micro-aggressions.
Ben O'Neill
May 4 2021 at 5:59pm
Thanks for posting this critique Brian. I agree with your critic here, but it is wonderful that you are open enough to post such a critical view on your own blog. I hope he changes your mind.
Phil H
May 4 2021 at 9:09pm
As a matter of practical politics, Caplan’s original post came across to me as lucid and measured (though wrong). This guy seems to be yelling, “They’re worse than McCarthyism!” and I have no interest in listening to him. So if someone is trying to pursuade the unconvinced, I think BC has the better approach.
That said, this rant does seem to include some information that is much more alarming than the anodyne messages that BC wrote about. He seems to suggest that the school is imposing teaching requirements… but when I click through “cultural diversity requirement” once again the actual university’s information does not support that. It says there is a “flag” that can be given to courses that are in fact about diversity. Does anyone have any more information about this?
Comments are closed.