We cannot allow the United States to become a country in which the price of dissent is so high that all but the bravest among us are unwilling to pay it.

NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE

A
“pall of orthodoxy” has descended over an increasing number of American institutions. The stifling of dissent and the pressuring of people to conform to ideological dogmas that began in universities has spread to the media and even to the corporate world. While official government censorship may be rare, we are living in a moment where the consequences of speaking out on the “wrong side” of controversial issues — or even supporting others who speak out — are often nothing short of personal and professional ruin. And while we can, and should, expect people to display some degree of fortitude when it comes to the private social consequences of free expression, the price has become so high that an ever-shrinking number of people are willing to pay it.

A prime example of this phenomenon is the situation that has been unfolding at my alma mater, Princeton University, over the past several weeks. On July 4, more than 350 Princeton faculty, staff, and graduate students signed a petition demanding the university do more to address racism on campus, including by creating “a committee composed entirely of faculty that would oversee the investigation and discipline of racist behaviors, incidents, research, and publication on the part of faculty.”

You Might Like

Many people, myself included, were stunned that a group of faculty would demand such an all-out attack on academic freedom — a virtual academic Committee of Public Safety. One such person was Classics professor Joshua Katz, who several days after the July 4 faculty petition published his own “Declaration of Independence by a Princeton Professor” in Quillette. Katz supported some of the demands made in the petition that do not imperil academic freedom and integrity, but pushed back against the demands that do. Of the aforementioned committee, for example, Katz asked, “is there anyone who doesn’t believe that this committee would be a star chamber with a low bar for cancellation, punishment, suspension, even dismissal?”

Katz also took issue with the demand that Princeton make “a formal public University apology to the members of the Black Justice League and their allies.” In light of what any reasonable person would acknowledge as abusive behaviors by BJL members towards other students, he described the BJL (a group which was active on campus from 2014 to 2016) as “a small local terrorist organization that made life miserable for the many (including the many black students) who did not agree with its members’ demands.”

Predictably, the official denouncements came fast and furious — though, unsurprisingly, the shocking demand by Princeton faculty to abolish academic freedom at the university generated no such reaction, nor did their unlawful demand that faculty of color receive extra pay and sabbatical time compared to white faculty. Despite the regularity with which words like “fascist” and “Nazi” are used to denounce anyone who does not cleave to the increasingly dominant orthodoxy of the hard left, Katz’s rhetorical use of the word “terrorist” to describe the bullying tactics of a now-defunct student group was deemed beyond the pale. The university quickly announced that it was “looking into the matter further,” as though someone’s expression of opinion were an appropriate subject for an official university investigation, and the Classics department posted an official denunciation of Katz on the departmental homepage.

Thankfully, Princeton’s administration ultimately realized that any investigation or punishment of Katz would have violated the university’s contractual guarantees of free speech and academic freedom, and President Chris Eisgruber publicly confirmed this week in the Daily Princetonian that Princeton’s policies “protect Katz’s freedom to say what he did, just as they protected the Black Justice League’s. He can be answered but not censored or sanctioned.”

But this would not have been the outcome at many institutions. And indeed, throughout this episode, supporters of Katz and his free speech rights have learned how deeply the cancel-culture poison has infiltrated American educational and corporate institutions. Last week, a Princeton alumnus circulated a statement in support of Katz, asking fellow Princeton alums to sign on. Sadly, the repressive climate of fear in which we find ourselves was evident in a number of the responses to that statement. To illustrate the reality in which we now find ourselves, I have been given permission to quote from a few of these responses (anonymously, of course, with any identifying details removed).

One individual wrote: “I wish I could sign this letter supporting you just as I wish I could write one of my own.” However, this person’s corporate employer made clear that it would view this as “purposefully undermining them” and would probably fire them for signing the letter. This person expressed deep regret, but said that they simply could not forego the money they needed to support a growing family.

Another person, despite agreeing with the letter, declined to sign because “If I admitted now what I really thought on this and a number of other topics, I would be finished in academic life.” This person hoped someday to have the courage to speak their mind, but for the time being said to the statement’s author and to Katz himself that “until then I ask for your and his forgiveness for not signing your letter.”

Yet another person — this one so fearful that they did not even use their real name and email address — wrote:

It is sad that the day has come in America when this kind of article amounts to a brave act. I hope free speech and critical thinking will one day be universally valued again in academia, but I don’t think that is the direction in which we are currently headed. For the time being, I hope your article will at least inspire other colleagues to speak their minds more sincerely.

As a junior tenure-track professor, I sympathize with your message, but I cannot afford the luxury to support it openly; hence why this email is regretfully unsigned.

This is madness — and it is horrifying. We cannot allow the United States to become a country in which, despite legal protections for free speech, the price of dissent is so high that all but the bravest among us are unwilling to pay it. So how do we pull back from this precipice? Individual courage is important, but I believe a commitment to collective action is also necessary. There is safety in numbers. My own anecdotal sense, as someone who lives and breathes and discusses these issues on a daily basis, is that a majority of people of good faith from across the political spectrum believe that cancel culture is toxic and deeply corrosive of the ties that bind us together as a nation. The problem is, no one wants to be the first to say it. So we all need to say it. It’s like the bystanders who allow the school bully to rampage unabated for fear of becoming his next target. Failing to intervene on behalf of someone being attacked may delay the inevitable attack on you, but that’s all it can do. Standing up as a group and saying “no more,” however — that can end the bully’s reign altogether. And make no mistake: This is bullying, plain and simple.

In addition to standing up to the bullies who cow so many into silence, we must also stand up — using, whenever possible, the power of the law — to those cowards in positions of authority who give in to their own fear of the bullies by investigating and even punishing students, faculty, or employees for daring to dissent. Public institutions are bound by the First Amendment, and private institutions are — for the most part — contractually bound by the promises they make to students and faculty.

This fight is not going to be easy, and the victories will be incremental. But it is an unacceptable state of affairs when people cannot even express their support for someone’s right to dissent without fearing personal and professional destruction. Whatever account is to be given of how we came to such a pass, the sad fact is that we are here — the basic liberty to speak one’s mind, even on a university campus devoted to free and open inquiry in the pursuit of knowledge, exists only as a formality. It is up to us to make it a reality again. It will take individual courage together with cooperation across the lines of ideological division to produce what we so desperately need: a “new birth of freedom.”