Archive for 2016

DANIEL SHUCHMAN: Free Thought Under Siege: The battle over microaggressions going on at our universities is both a symptom and a cause of malaise and strife in society at large.

Rancorous trends such as microaggressions, safe spaces, trigger warnings and intellectual intolerance have taken hold at universities with breathtaking speed. Last year’s controversy over Halloween costumes at Yale led to the departure of two respected faculty members, and this year made the fall festival a flashpoint of conflict at campuses across the country. The recent explosion in the number of university administrators, coupled with an environment of perpetual suspicion—the University of Florida urges students to report on one another to its “Bias Education and Response Team”—drives students who need to resolve normal tensions in human interaction to instead seek intervention by mediators, diversity officers, student life deans or lawyers.

As Frank Furedi compellingly argues in this deeply perceptive and important book, these phenomena are not just harmless fads acted out by a few petulant students and their indulgent professors in an academic cocoon. Rather, they are both a symptom and a cause of malaise and strife in society at large. At stake is whether freedom of thought will long survive and whether individuals will have the temperament to resolve everyday social and workplace conflicts without bureaucratic intervention or litigation. . . .

Throughout history, the impulse to censorship has been driven by political or religious zealotry. In the 21st century, Mr. Furedi posits, speech suppression has assumed the mantle of mental-health therapy. But policing actual speech and books is not sufficient. In today’s environment, no matter what you say, it is exclusively the “individual who is hurt or offended . . . who decides what you really meant.” Thus people’s inner lives and imputed motivations, even unconscious ones, have become “legitimate terrain for intervention” by authorities. In an unprecedented twist, students themselves are agitating for the imposition of campus thought control.

Academic freedom is not an academic matter, Mr. Furedi reminds us. It “has a vital significance for the quality of public life.”

He’s reviewing Frank Furedi’s What’s Happened To The University?: A sociological exploration of its infantilisation.

And yes. If academia itself is insufficiently committed to free speech and inquiry, then the larger society must step in.

JAZZ SHAW: When Does The Postmortem For The Media Begin?

This wasn’t just a question of the pollsters getting their likely voter models massively wrong. That’s just number crunching. It was the media spokesmodels who took it upon themselves to tell Trump supporters not only that they had no chance, but then went on in great detail to tell them why their cause was hopeless. They were terrible people, probably fully deserving of the title, basket of deporables. Trump was terrible so that segment of the audience was obviously supporting a terrible person who voters of good intent and pure souls would soundly reject on election day.

Worse than that, thanks to Wikileaks we’ve been treated to one revelation after another of journalists – including debate moderators – who were working behind the scene to help the Clinton campaign in every way possible. Some resorted to cheating by leaking debate questions. The occasional analysis of how much time, both positive and negative, was devoted to each candidate spoke volumes. Trump’s negative coverage was an ocean compared to Clinton’s puddle.

The pollsters screwed up their math. Cable news hosts and the editorial boards at outfits like the Washington Post engaged in an all out war to stop Trump at all costs and paint him in the most unflattering light possible at every turn. The voters turned around yesterday and told them to go pack sand. Why is this not being discussed?

Why, indeed?

YES: What most people haven’t realized yet is the extent to which Donald Trump’s election victory is the unintended legacy of President Obama.

Part of the reason Democrats failed to realize the precariousness of their situation is because they talked themselves into the theory of an Emerging Democratic Majority. The idea was that racial minorities will inevitably constitute a growing portion of voters, while old white men are inevitably dying off.

So even as President Obama was elected on an illusory image as someone who could unite the country and put racial politics behind us, the Democrats’ whole electoral strategy was based on appealing to racial politics. Obama’s two election victories depended in large part on increased turnout by minority voters, who voted in unusually high percentages to elect and re-elect the first black president.

This electoral strategy fit well with the inclinations of a politician who had actually been brought up neck deep in racial politics. So we saw President Obama pass up every opportunity to be a calming and uniting figure in racial controversies from the Beer Summit to Trayvon Martin to Ferguson to Black Lives Matter. While he quietly demurred to the idea that all of his critics must be racists, he didn’t exactly go out of his way to discourage his supporters from making that argument.

It’s not just that Hillary Clinton couldn’t replicate Obama’s mobilization of minority voters. (It appears, against all logic and reason, that Donald Trump got a higher percentage of the black and Hispanic vote than the earnest, innocuous Mitt Romney.) Even worse, the Democrats’ constant stoking of racial politics provoked a backlash, often in ugly forms, among blue-collar whites who are tired of being targeted as the enemy—which once again delivered the Reagan Democrats to Trump.

Yes.

Related: Why The Latino Vote Didn’t Save Hillary: “Given the bad blood between Trump and Latinos, one of the biggest surprises on Election Night was that so many Latinos ended up voting for their tormentor. According to CNN’s exit polls, about 27 percent of Latinos voted for Trump. Exit polls from The New York Times put the figure at 29 percent. This means that Trump did better with Hispanics than Bob Dole in 1996 (21 percent), and wound up comparable to Mitt Romney in 2012 (27 percent). . . . To understand the concept of ‘Latinos for Trump,’ the first thing you have to do is to accept that Latino voters aren’t monolithic, one-dimensional, or single-issue oriented. Like the Boston Irish of the 20th century, some of us may define ourselves first by our ethnicity while others just see ourselves as Americans. Period.”

If Trump and the GOP are smart, they’ll pursue policies, and rhetoric, that encourage more of the latter.

IN THE EMAIL FROM DECLAN FINN, A SEQUEL TO HIS DRAGON AWARD FINALIST BOOK: Murphy’s Law of Vampires.

JAMES LILEKS ON TUESDAY’S RESULTS: “Well, there’s an old Chinese curse, right? ‘May you live in 2016.’ Or something like that. I keep reminding Daughter: when you follow all the Hot Issues of the Day Everyone Is Furious About, you’re looking the scorpion in the eye, thinking you can glare him down with your indignation. Big mistake. Watch the claw. Beware the tail.”

RUTH BADER GINSBURG: Failed Political Pundit. “In recent years she’s hinted that part of her retirement calculation depended upon the fact that a Democrat would succeed President Barack Obama.”

SCOTT ADAMS: I Answer Your Questions About Predicting President Trump. “Watch as Trump turns to healing. You’re going to be surprised how well he does it.”

Plus: “I ask Trump supporters not to gloat too much. Be good to your fellow citizens. Be inclusive. Be useful. The country needs you at your best.”