NYT: "What ‘Snowflakes’ Get Right About Free Speech"
Print Friendly and PDF
From the NYT op-ed page:
What ‘Snowflakes’ Get Right About Free Speech

Ulrich Baer


… During the 1980s and ’90s, a shift occurred in American culture; personal experience and testimony, especially of suffering and oppression, began to challenge the primacy of argument. Freedom of expression became a flash point in this shift. Then as now, both liberals and conservatives were wary of the privileging of personal experience, with its powerful emotional impact, over reason and argument, which some fear will bring an end to civilization, or at least to freedom of speech.

We should resist the temptation to rehash these debates. Doing so would overlook the fact that a thorough generational shift has occurred. Widespread caricatures of students as overly sensitive, vulnerable and entitled “snowflakes” fail to acknowledge the philosophical work that was carried out, especially in the 1980s and ’90s, to legitimate experience — especially traumatic experience — which had been dismissed for decades as unreliable, untrustworthy and inaccessible to understanding. …

… We would do better to focus on a more sophisticated understanding, such as the one provided by Lyotard, of the necessary conditions for speech to be a common, public good. This requires the realization that in politics, the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing. …

The average undergraduate today was eleven when Barack Obama was elected President. But Charles Murray deserves to get punched in the head and Ta-Nehisi Coates deserves to get a thousand dollars per minute of speech on campus because, uh, TNC’s great-grandfather got redlined by FDR.
The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.
But these subhuman rightwingers should be punched in the head because what’s more fun than a boot stamping on a human face (as long as it’s your boot and your enemy’s face)?
…We should recognize that the current generation of students, roundly ridiculed by an unholy alliance of so-called alt-right demagogues and campus liberals as coddled snowflakes, realized something important about this country before the pundits and professors figured it out.

What is under severe attack, in the name of an absolute notion of free speech, are the rights, both legal and cultural, of minorities to participate in public discourse. The snowflakes sensed, a good year before the election of President Trump, that insults and direct threats could once again become sanctioned by the most powerful office in the land.

Occam’s Razor, however, might suggest that the arrow of cause and effect ran in the same direction as time did: the rise of campus snowflake bullying helped get Trump elected.
… We should thank the student protestors, the activists in Black Lives Matter and other “overly sensitive” souls for keeping watch over the soul of our republic.
They are the Who and you, deservedly, are the Whom.

[Comment at Unz.com]

Print Friendly and PDF