{"id":10393,"date":"2017-03-11T02:15:30","date_gmt":"2017-03-11T02:15:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/?p=10393"},"modified":"2017-03-29T21:07:16","modified_gmt":"2017-03-29T21:07:16","slug":"middlebury-and-the-heretic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/middlebury-and-the-heretic\/","title":{"rendered":"Middlebury and The Heretic"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"Cross-posted<\/a> on The Corner.<\/p>\n

Looked at one way, the attempt to silence Charles Murray and the violence that followed<\/a> it was nothing more than another chapter in a long power struggle, but there was something else about it, something more disturbing still.<\/p>\n

Writing<\/a> in New York<\/em> magazine, Andrew Sullivan:<\/p>\n

At around the 19-minute mark, the students explained why they shut down the talk, and it helped clarify for me what exactly the meaning of \u201cintersectionality\u201d is.<\/p>\n

\u201cIntersectionality\u201d is the latest academic craze sweeping the American academy. On the surface, it\u2019s a recent neo-Marxist theory that argues that social oppression does not simply apply to single categories of identity \u2014 such as race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. \u2014 but to all of them in an interlocking system of hierarchy and power. At least, that\u2019s my best attempt to define it briefly. But watching that video helps show how an otherwise challenging social theory can often operate in practice.<\/p>\n

It is operating, in Orwell\u2019s words, as a \u201csmelly little orthodoxy,\u201d and it manifests itself, it seems to me, almost as a religion. It posits a classic orthodoxy through which all of human experience is explained \u2014 and through which all speech must be filtered. Its version of original sin is the power of some identity groups over others. To overcome this sin, you need first to confess, i.e., \u201ccheck your privilege,\u201d and subsequently live your life and order your thoughts in a way that keeps this sin at bay. The sin goes so deep into your psyche, especially if you are white or male or straight, that a profound conversion is required\u2026<\/p>\n

Like the Puritanism once familiar in New England, intersectionality controls language and the very terms of discourse. It enforces manners. It has an idea of virtue \u2014 and is obsessed with upholding it. The saints are the most oppressed who nonetheless resist. The sinners are categorized in various ascending categories of demographic damnation, like something out of Dante. The only thing this religion lacks, of course, is salvation. Life is simply an interlocking drama of oppression and power and resistance, ending only in death. It\u2019s Marx without the final total liberation.<\/p>\n

It operates as a religion in one other critical dimension: If you happen to see the world in a different way, if you\u2019re a liberal or libertarian or even, gasp, a conservative, if you believe that a university is a place where any idea, however loathsome, can be debated and refuted, you are not just wrong, you are immoral. If you think that arguments and ideas can have a life independent of \u201cwhite supremacy,\u201d you are complicit in evil. And you are not just complicit, your heresy is a direct threat to others, and therefore needs to be extinguished. You can\u2019t reason with heresy. You have to ban it. It will contaminate others\u2019 souls, and wound them irreparably.<\/p>\n

And what I saw on the video struck me most as a form of religious ritual \u2014 a secular exorcism, if you will \u2014 that reaches a frenzied, disturbing catharsis. When Murray starts to speak, the students stand and ritually turn their backs on him in silence. The heretic must not be looked at, let alone engaged. Then they recite a common liturgy in unison from sheets of paper. Here\u2019s how they begin: \u201cThis is not respectful discourse, or a debate about free speech. These are not ideas that can be fairly debated, it is not \u2018representative\u2019 of the other side to give a platform to such dangerous ideologies. There is not a potential for an equal exchange of ideas.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Sullivan\u2019s article comes with a few nods to orthodoxy of its own, but the fundamental point he makes, which can be applied to many other religions beyond Puritan New England, not least to Marxism (itself a millenarian creed) and its offshoots, is very well worth noting.<\/p>\n

And here<\/a>, writing more explicitly from the left (his observations\u00a0 on the role that class has\u00a0 to play in what\u2019s going on in the colleges of the elite is something to think about), in The American Scholar<\/em>, is William Deresiewicz. If I had to guess the article was written before the events\u00a0 at Middlebury, but:<\/p>\n

Selective private colleges have become religious schools. The religion in question is not Methodism or Catholicism but an extreme version of the belief system of the liberal elite: the liberal professional, managerial, and creative classes, which provide a large majority of students enrolled at such places and an even larger majority of faculty and administrators who work at them. To attend those institutions is to be socialized, and not infrequently, indoctrinated into that religion\u2026<\/p>\n

What does it mean to say that these institutions are religious schools? First, that they possess a dogma, unwritten but understood by all: a set of \u201ccorrect\u201d opinions and beliefs, or at best, a narrow range within which disagreement is permitted. There is a right way to think and a right way to talk, and also a right set of things to think and talk about. Secularism is taken for granted. Environmentalism is a sacred cause. Issues of identity\u2014principally the holy trinity of race, gender, and sexuality\u2014occupy the center of concern. The presiding presence is Michel Foucault, with his theories of power, discourse, and the social construction of the self, who plays the same role on the left as Marx once did. The fundamental questions that a college education ought to raise\u2014questions of individual and collective virtue, of what it means to be a good person and a good community\u2014are understood to have been settled. The assumption, on elite college campuses, is that we are already in full possession of the moral truth. This is a religious attitude. It is certainly not a scholarly or intellectual attitude.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Deresiewicz understands how this religion uses of the mechanisms of social control:<\/p>\n

So it is with political correctness. There is always something new, as my students understood, that you aren\u2019t supposed to say. And worst of all, you often don\u2019t find out about it until after you have said it. The term political correctness, which originated in the 1970s as a form of self-mockery among progressive college students, was a deliberately ironic invocation of Stalinism. By now we\u2019ve lost the irony but kept the Stalinism\u2014and it was a feature of Stalinism that you could be convicted for an act that was not a crime at the time you committed it. So you were always already guilty, or could be made to be guilty, and therefore were always controllable.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There is always another sin.<\/p>\n

Speaking of which, there was this<\/a> in Reason<\/em>:<\/p>\n

A residential advisor at Pitzer College sent a campus-wide email informing students\u2014white women, in particular\u2014that they should stop wearing hoop earrings.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Cross-posted on The Corner. Looked at one way, the attempt to silence Charles Murray and the violence that followed it was nothing more than another chapter in a long power struggle, but there was something else about it, something more … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":64,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false},"categories":[1005],"tags":[501,1097],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10393"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/64"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10393"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10393\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10395,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10393\/revisions\/10395"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}