WSJ
 
 
Liberals Are Killing the  Liberal Arts
This is how bad censorship is getting:  Discussions of what can’t be said 
come with a ‘trigger warning.’
 
 
 
 
 
By  
Harvey Silverglate 

Nov.  9, 2014 5:59 p.m. ET 
On campuses across the country, hostility toward unpopular ideas has become 
 so irrational that many students, and some faculty members, now openly 
oppose  freedom of speech. The hypersensitive consider the mere discussion of 
the topic  of censorship to be potentially traumatic. Those who try to 
protect academic  freedom and the ability of the academy to discuss the world 
as 
it is are  swimming against the current. In such an atmosphere, liberal-arts 
education  can’t survive. 
Consider what happened after Smith College held a panel for alumnae titled  
“Challenging the Ideological Echo Chamber: Free Speech, Civil Discourse and 
the  Liberal Arts.” Moderated by Smith President Kathleen McCartney in late 
 September, the panel was an apparent effort to address the intolerance of  
diverse opinions that prevails on many campuses.  
One panelist was Smith alumna Wendy Kaminer—an author, lawyer, social 
critic,  feminist, First Amendment near-absolutist and former board member of 
the 
 American Civil Liberties Union. She delivered precisely the spirited 
challenge  to the echo chamber that the panel’s title seemed to invite. But Ms. 
Kaminer  emerged from the discussion of free speech labeled a racist—for 
defending free  speech. 
The panel started innocuously enough with Ms. Kaminer criticizing the  
proliferation of campus speech codes that restrict supposedly offensive  
language. She urged the audience to defend the free exchange of ideas over  
parochial notions of “civility.” In response to a question about teaching  
materials that contain “hate speech,” she raised the example of Mark Twain ’s  “
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” arguing that students should take it as 
a  whole. The student member of the panel, Jaime Estrada, resisted that 
notion,  saying, “But it has the n-word, and some people are sensitive to that.”
 
Ms. Kaminer responded: “Well let’s talk about n-words. Let’s talk about 
the  growing lexicon of words that can only be known by their initials. I 
mean, when  I say, ‘n-word’ or when Jaime says ‘n-word,’ what word do you all 
hear in your  head? You hear the word . . . ”




 
 
And then Ms. Kaminer crossed the Rubicon of political correctness and 
uttered  the forbidden word, observing that having uttered it, “nothing 
horrible  
happened.” She then compared the trend of replacing potentially offensive 
words  with an initial to being “characters in a Harry Potter book who are 
afraid to  say the word ‘Voldemort.’ ” There’s an important difference, she 
pointed out,  between hurling an epithet and uttering a forbidden word 
during an academic  discussion of our attitudes toward language and law. 
The event—and Ms. Kaminer’s words—prompted blowback from Smith  
undergraduates, recent alumnae and some faculty members. One member of the  
audience 
posted an audio recording and transcript of the discussion, preceded by  what 
has come to be known in the academic world as a “trigger warning”:  
“Trigger/Content Warnings: Racism/racial slurs, abelist slurs, anti-Semitic 
 language, anti-Muslim/Islamophobic language, anti-immigrant language,  
sexist/misogynistic slurs, references to race-based violence.” 
One has to have imbibed this culture of hyper-victimization in order even 
to  understand the lingo. “Ableism,” for example, is described at 
ableism.org as  “the practices and dominant attitudes in society that devalue 
and 
limit the  potential of persons with disabilities” and that “assign inferior 
value (worth)  to persons who have developmental, emotional, physical or 
psychiatric  disabilities.” 
The contretemps prompted articles in the newspapers of Smith College and  
neighboring Mount Holyoke College, condemning Ms. Kaminer’s remarks as 
examples  of institutionalized racism. Smith president Ms. McCartney was 
criticized for  not immediately denouncing Ms. Kaminer. In a Sept. 29 letter 
responding to the  Smith community, she apologized to students and faculty who 
were “
hurt” and made  to feel “unsafe” by Ms. Kaminer’s comments in defense of 
free speech.  
A rare academic counter-current to the vast censorial wave came from  
professor of politics Christopher Pyle at Mount Holyoke. He wrote in the Mount  
Holyoke News that readers of the paper were misled by a report that “a Smith  
alumna made racist remarks when speaking at an alumnae panel.” He 
criticized the  condemnation of Ms. Kaminer for her willingness to challenge 
the 
tyranny of  “sanitary euphemisms.” 
Smith is not the epicenter of hostility to free speech. On university  
campuses nationwide we are witnessing an increasing tide of trigger warnings.  
They are popping up on syllabi, in discussions of public art, and even 
finding  their way into official school policies.  
On Oct. 27, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology circulated a survey  
questionnaire to its entire student body on the issue of sexual assault—a  
so-called “climate survey” to try to determine and expose the extent of the  
problem at the school. Remarkably enough, the survey itself came 
accompanied by,  guess what: 
“TRIGGER WARNING: Some of the questions in this survey use explicit 
language,  including anatomical names of body parts and specific behaviors to 
ask 
about  sexual situations. This survey also asks about sexual assault and 
other forms of  sexual violence which may be upsetting. Resources for support 
will be available  on every page of the survey, should you need them.” 
Hypersensitivity to the trauma allegedly inflicted by listening to  
controversial ideas approaches a strange form of derangement—a disorder whose  
lethal spread in academia grows by the day. What should be the object of  
derision, a focus for satire, is instead the subject of serious faux academic  
discussion and precautionary warnings. For this disorder there is no effective  
quarantine. A whole generation of students soon will have imbibed the 
warped  notions of justice and entitlement now handed down as dogma in the  
universities.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to