Well before they ever came for me, I got a relatively early look at the phenomenon of students protesting about speech, quite by chance. In April 2017 I was in California to give a talk at wealthy liberal arts college Claremont McKenna. Student guests were to observe a strict dress code, and would enjoy a three-course dinner, after which they would be required to remain upright and vaguely sentient during the talk by me. Arriving at the building with my young family who were travelling with me, we were greeted with the incongruous sight of two policemen slouching at the entrance, guns prominently to the fore of their belts, vetting the preppily-dressed people trooping in to hear me discuss burning issues in the philosophy of fiction and imagination.
Thanks for the article. I loved The Coddling of the American Mind but i thought it did not answer for the weird religious fervor you see in these young people.
I think you are right, they do look like they are trying to expiate something. That does not invalidate Lukianoff and Haidt´s analysis of the root causes but it does show how dangerous they can become. Humans have burned the world to get rid of the filth they failed to see was inside of them all along. We are heading toward a very not fun society with those kids in charge of all our major institutions…
I broke down and paid for a subscription just so I could thank you for sharing these carefully articulated thoughts about the world! You have convinced me that today's "speech sanitizers" could indeed be guided by a moral compulsion to prevent harm to others.
May 20, 2022·edited May 21, 2022Liked by Kathleen Stock
You say: "The old idea of the University as a vibrant and cohesive community of individuals, forced into productive relation with one another in the shared pursuit of truth, is very old hat. For a start, nobody really believes in truth anymore." This is very striking, and also very sad.
What is a University for? Three answers: (a) the medieval answer, that it's for the understanding and promulgation of religious truth; (b) the liberal answer, that it's for the pursuit of truth (unconstrained by religious authority); and (c) the postliberal answer, whatever it turns out to be (not yet clear). The medieval model persisted in the UK (to some degree) until the University Tests Act 1871. The liberal model then held sway for 100 years or more. It's now under strain, or it's over. But what is the postliberal University for? This is still contested: the main possible answers seem to be economic growth, or social justice, or perhaps some combination of the two.
When the liberal University got going, those who still adhered to the medieval model set up their own institutions: confessional universities, or seminaries. Will we now see those who still believe in the liberal university making a similar move? Perhaps the University of Austin (in which Kathleen herself has some involvement) is the precursor of a wider movement.
Excellent. The part analogizing this to “harm OCD” was really striking, I think you’re on to something there. There’s this idea that unless you are constantly repeating these calls to either awareness or specific actions you yourself become complicit or directly responsible in the harm. But you can’t be aware of everything, and there’s never any room to discuss whether the proposed action will even be effective, or proportionate, or whether there are important tradeoffs to consider. That’s justified by describing everything as an emergency, but of course everything cannot actually be an emergency, at the very least not for everyone.
This is a brilliant piece. Your analysis of the inner moral landscape of those on the left is revelatory. It helps me to understand myself better, too. I’m a teacher in the US and I am under enormous pressure to provide “safe spaces” for students. This has been very stressful for me, because I don’t want to insult anyone and because I know students and teachers are on the lookout for transgressions. This analysis helps me to understand what is happening.
By the way - would you ever consider doing a series on Philosophy 101, not as a critique, but as a straightforward course? I would pay a lot to see a video series presented by you.
Rather brilliant essay buttressed with some cogent analysis along with more than a few "zingers": "moral performance anxiety"; "moral compass to start spinning"; "rootless individualists and lone wolf-types, full of animosity and suspicion for one another".
However, while one might sympathize with your "not remotely my problem anymore" - "not my suitcase" as my sister puts it - it "triggers" (you'll excuse the allusion or connotation) a recollection of Niemöller's, "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out Because I was not a socialist". You are of course "speaking out", at least to some extent, against the pernicious consequences of that particular attitude or "moral" modus operandi, and for which you are to be commended. But one might reasonably argue that those consequences have a far wider impact than what you may be willing to consider, that the fate of Western Civilization - such as it is - and that of everyone who relies on its Enlightenment precepts and values hangs in the balance.
However, the roots of that problem go rather deep and "nourish" if not "poison" the arguments of pretty much all and sundy, that they are part and parcel of what you yourself suggest are the "prior commitments" of many feminists - and fellow-travelers such as yourself: motes and beams; pots and kettles. More particularly and ICYMI, you might "enjoy", or find some "illumination" in a post by, no doubt, one of your favourite transwomen, Katie Montgomerie, who, quite reasonably, criticizes Sheila Jeffreys for comparing transwomen to parasites:
I had posted a comment in response which now gives a 410 error: "This post is under investigation or was found in violation of the Medium Rules", although I, as the author, can still see and quote it:
Quote:
Not sure that I would entirely agree with all of your “unambiguously transphobic” list, although I would readily agree that many “gender critical beliefs and positions” are not particularly tenable and are therefore at least rather problematic.
And I actually have some degree of sympathy for your argument that “being trans is something you’re born”, that “it’s not a choice”. A curious phenomenon in many ways, but one that I’ve argued may well shed some useful light on how we all develop our senses of self.
However, I’m not at all sure that you’re entirely justified in dismissing the question of “who is a real woman”. As Voltaire put it, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms”. And the only coherent definition for “woman” is as an “adult human female” with the biological definition for “female”, and similarly for “male”, being “produces ova” and “produces sperm”:
"Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems.
While transwomen are most certainly not females and thereby not women, neither are prepubescent girls nor menopausees. Something which most “women” get rather offended by and vociferously reject, many of them – Kathleen Stock for example – having blocked me on Twitter for promoting those biological definitions:
No doubt there are many transwomen who contribute to the problem, but there’s no shortage of women – nominal and otherwise – who do likewise. Issue is unlikely to be resolved until more on each side can agree on some common ground – particularly on those biological definitions.
One Kitty Whitemore, a transwoman "herself", had responded to my comment with an accusation of "troll, anti-trans activist" which I had, in turn, responded with:
But the crux of the problem, as I've suggested or argued above and elsewhere, is that feminists and transwomen both are using quite unscientific if not anti-scientific definitions for "female" on which the definition for "woman" ultimately depends. No doubt that the transwoman definition is more or less based on little more than irrelevant superficialities and subjective perceptions - bewbs ergo female - but those of most feminists and "social scientists" are little better in lacking a "functional rationale". As Marco Del Giudice of the University of New Mexico put it:
"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"
Don't think you - and far too many others - quite get that there are no intrinsic meanings to "male" and "female"; at one point "female" meant "she who suckles" by which Jenner and his ilk would qualify.
We DECIDE - collectively - which definitions make the most sense and have the widest degree of utility. And the only ones that have any coherence and consistency over a field encompassing literally tens of millions of sexually reproducing species are the biological definitions based on the presence of functional gonads of either of two types.
I really would like to see you address that issue and its consequences, particularly as I don't see the transgender clusterfuck - and the rot in academia that it has "engendered" - being resolved without doing so. But I am willing to put some "coin of the realm" on the table to promote that discussion should you be interested in taking that bull by the horns.
Thanks for the article. I loved The Coddling of the American Mind but i thought it did not answer for the weird religious fervor you see in these young people.
I think you are right, they do look like they are trying to expiate something. That does not invalidate Lukianoff and Haidt´s analysis of the root causes but it does show how dangerous they can become. Humans have burned the world to get rid of the filth they failed to see was inside of them all along. We are heading toward a very not fun society with those kids in charge of all our major institutions…
I broke down and paid for a subscription just so I could thank you for sharing these carefully articulated thoughts about the world! You have convinced me that today's "speech sanitizers" could indeed be guided by a moral compulsion to prevent harm to others.
You say: "The old idea of the University as a vibrant and cohesive community of individuals, forced into productive relation with one another in the shared pursuit of truth, is very old hat. For a start, nobody really believes in truth anymore." This is very striking, and also very sad.
What is a University for? Three answers: (a) the medieval answer, that it's for the understanding and promulgation of religious truth; (b) the liberal answer, that it's for the pursuit of truth (unconstrained by religious authority); and (c) the postliberal answer, whatever it turns out to be (not yet clear). The medieval model persisted in the UK (to some degree) until the University Tests Act 1871. The liberal model then held sway for 100 years or more. It's now under strain, or it's over. But what is the postliberal University for? This is still contested: the main possible answers seem to be economic growth, or social justice, or perhaps some combination of the two.
When the liberal University got going, those who still adhered to the medieval model set up their own institutions: confessional universities, or seminaries. Will we now see those who still believe in the liberal university making a similar move? Perhaps the University of Austin (in which Kathleen herself has some involvement) is the precursor of a wider movement.
Excellent. The part analogizing this to “harm OCD” was really striking, I think you’re on to something there. There’s this idea that unless you are constantly repeating these calls to either awareness or specific actions you yourself become complicit or directly responsible in the harm. But you can’t be aware of everything, and there’s never any room to discuss whether the proposed action will even be effective, or proportionate, or whether there are important tradeoffs to consider. That’s justified by describing everything as an emergency, but of course everything cannot actually be an emergency, at the very least not for everyone.
This is a brilliant piece. Your analysis of the inner moral landscape of those on the left is revelatory. It helps me to understand myself better, too. I’m a teacher in the US and I am under enormous pressure to provide “safe spaces” for students. This has been very stressful for me, because I don’t want to insult anyone and because I know students and teachers are on the lookout for transgressions. This analysis helps me to understand what is happening.
By the way - would you ever consider doing a series on Philosophy 101, not as a critique, but as a straightforward course? I would pay a lot to see a video series presented by you.
Speech Sanitisers - that is a wonderfully pithy phrase i shall remember (and use)!
Rather brilliant essay buttressed with some cogent analysis along with more than a few "zingers": "moral performance anxiety"; "moral compass to start spinning"; "rootless individualists and lone wolf-types, full of animosity and suspicion for one another".
However, while one might sympathize with your "not remotely my problem anymore" - "not my suitcase" as my sister puts it - it "triggers" (you'll excuse the allusion or connotation) a recollection of Niemöller's, "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out Because I was not a socialist". You are of course "speaking out", at least to some extent, against the pernicious consequences of that particular attitude or "moral" modus operandi, and for which you are to be commended. But one might reasonably argue that those consequences have a far wider impact than what you may be willing to consider, that the fate of Western Civilization - such as it is - and that of everyone who relies on its Enlightenment precepts and values hangs in the balance.
However, the roots of that problem go rather deep and "nourish" if not "poison" the arguments of pretty much all and sundy, that they are part and parcel of what you yourself suggest are the "prior commitments" of many feminists - and fellow-travelers such as yourself: motes and beams; pots and kettles. More particularly and ICYMI, you might "enjoy", or find some "illumination" in a post by, no doubt, one of your favourite transwomen, Katie Montgomerie, who, quite reasonably, criticizes Sheila Jeffreys for comparing transwomen to parasites:
https://katymontgomerie.medium.com/a-list-of-unambiguously-transphobic-mainstream-gender-critical-positions-1e84fa903ceb
I had posted a comment in response which now gives a 410 error: "This post is under investigation or was found in violation of the Medium Rules", although I, as the author, can still see and quote it:
Quote:
Not sure that I would entirely agree with all of your “unambiguously transphobic” list, although I would readily agree that many “gender critical beliefs and positions” are not particularly tenable and are therefore at least rather problematic.
And I actually have some degree of sympathy for your argument that “being trans is something you’re born”, that “it’s not a choice”. A curious phenomenon in many ways, but one that I’ve argued may well shed some useful light on how we all develop our senses of self.
However, I’m not at all sure that you’re entirely justified in dismissing the question of “who is a real woman”. As Voltaire put it, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms”. And the only coherent definition for “woman” is as an “adult human female” with the biological definition for “female”, and similarly for “male”, being “produces ova” and “produces sperm”:
"Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems.
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
While transwomen are most certainly not females and thereby not women, neither are prepubescent girls nor menopausees. Something which most “women” get rather offended by and vociferously reject, many of them – Kathleen Stock for example – having blocked me on Twitter for promoting those biological definitions:
No doubt there are many transwomen who contribute to the problem, but there’s no shortage of women – nominal and otherwise – who do likewise. Issue is unlikely to be resolved until more on each side can agree on some common ground – particularly on those biological definitions.
Unquote:
https://medium.com/@steersmann/not-sure-that-i-would-entirely-agree-with-all-of-your-unambiguously-transphobic-list-although-i-c23ec6fab264
One Kitty Whitemore, a transwoman "herself", had responded to my comment with an accusation of "troll, anti-trans activist" which I had, in turn, responded with:
https://medium.com/@steersmann/troll-seems-the-modern-day-equivalent-of-playing-the-race-card-95adfcf13baf
But the crux of the problem, as I've suggested or argued above and elsewhere, is that feminists and transwomen both are using quite unscientific if not anti-scientific definitions for "female" on which the definition for "woman" ultimately depends. No doubt that the transwoman definition is more or less based on little more than irrelevant superficialities and subjective perceptions - bewbs ergo female - but those of most feminists and "social scientists" are little better in lacking a "functional rationale". As Marco Del Giudice of the University of New Mexico put it:
"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346447193_Ideological_Bias_in_the_Psychology_of_Sex_and_Gender
Don't think you - and far too many others - quite get that there are no intrinsic meanings to "male" and "female"; at one point "female" meant "she who suckles" by which Jenner and his ilk would qualify.
We DECIDE - collectively - which definitions make the most sense and have the widest degree of utility. And the only ones that have any coherence and consistency over a field encompassing literally tens of millions of sexually reproducing species are the biological definitions based on the presence of functional gonads of either of two types.
I really would like to see you address that issue and its consequences, particularly as I don't see the transgender clusterfuck - and the rot in academia that it has "engendered" - being resolved without doing so. But I am willing to put some "coin of the realm" on the table to promote that discussion should you be interested in taking that bull by the horns.