Tales from the Free Speech Foxhole

David French graciously guest-hosts in Jonah’s place on today’s program, wherein he has a long-ranging ...

By
12

David French graciously guest-hosts in Jonah’s place on today’s program, wherein he has a long-ranging conversation with a longtime friend, Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. David and Greg discuss some of the silliest and most sinister examples of censorship regimes on college campuses from recent history, the history of the campus free speech movement stretching back to the 1950s, David’s memories of being a conservative at Harvard Law School, and the moment that Greg realized that “the students themselves had become the main proponents of censorship.” By coincidence, it’s our second Remnantin a row that is largely about modern cancel culture and censorship, rounded out by a conversation about the Snyder Cut. The only difference, really, is that David and Greg seriously dig it.

Show Notes:

– Greg Lukianoff of FIRE

– The Coddling of the American Mind, by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt

– Herbert Marcuse and campus free speech

– Greg: “Speech Codes: The Biggest Scandal on College Campuses Today”

– “Inappropriately directed laughter”

– “Beirut on the Charles”

– Greg’s first book, Unlearning Liberty

– Indian River Community College bans The Passion of the Christ

– The Eternally Radical Idea

– The Ronald Zaccari Memorial Parking Garage

– Greg debates Ken White on cancel culture

– Greg talks about social justice graduate requirements in the Chronicle of Higher Education

– Alexi McCammond fired from Teen Vogue over old tweets

– Jonathan Rauch on how to tell if you’re being canceled

– The Revolt of the Public, by Martin Gurri

– Amazon pulls Ryan T. Anderson’s book on transgender issues

By
Comments (12)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Can we make an appeal to the substitute hosts (Chris and David) to bring back, “Can you dig it,” in Jonah’s absence? Just kidding. Although it would make my day.

    This was an awesome podcast. I have not yet read Coddling of the American Mind, but probably will at some point. My one point of contention: Gen Z starts in 1997! Not 95! According to Pew Research center. I realize generational definitions are a little fuzzy on the edges. But I’ll pick and choose the one I like best. As someone born in 96 (I suppose that dated me but so be it) I will go to my deathbed claiming to be a Millennial and not a Gen Zer. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    I enjoyed this so much that I hopped over to the library catalog and requested one of Mr. Lukianoff's books.

    Collapse
  3. N Heg

    Skipped the superhero talk, but the rest was great!

    I enjoyed the attempted definitions of "cancel culture." The context around the recent history of free speech issues on college campus was also very helpful to understanding the issue.

    David's explanation that we need more empathy for people who have proved that they are "more than their worst tweet," I think seems to be a starting point that society needs to get to. After listening to their stories of campus speech, I have no doubt that had social media been as prevalent then as it is now we would be having these same issues and discussions. The work of free speech defenders never stops!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CynthiaW

      "Skipped the superhero talk ..."

      I hung in until the end hoping they would get back to something interesting.

      Collapse
  4. Sharon Brown

    Shownote: "Jonathan Rauch on how to tell if you’re being canceled" should be NICK GILLESPIE How To Tell If You're Being Canceled.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Hrodland

    NIce to see that Greg fully redeems the surname Lukianoff.

    The "Fyoder variant" is as bad or worse than our home-grown academic idiots.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Kevin Johnson

    Thant was a great podcast...and I don’t even like superhero movies. David’s oft -repeated truisms that free speech is safer legally than ever and that conservatives have more outlets than ever to opine miss a key problem. More and more people face more and more outrageous circumstances where their speech/ actions could lead them to the worst possible social condemnation... racism or bigotry.

    This selective slamming shut of the Overton window by radicals and allies is fueled by hysteria and the emergence from the academy into media, NGOs, corporations, and schools of people indoctrinated into CRT and other radical ideas seeking to remake language and culture. If you agree with Obama’s first presidential position on gay marriage you are not just wrong, but a bigot. If you favor respect for trans people but dissent from their most extreme activists’ views, you are transphobic. If you favor color blindness and equality of opportunity as goals but oppose group rights and assumptions that all group disparities show racism, you are racist. In texts used far and wide you are racist if you don’t follow Kendi/DiAngelo rules.

    The application of these hysterical and radical positions to shun and silence those who disagree are extremely dangerous. You can cancel “the vagina diaries” and demand biological men access to women”s sports and prisons, and people afraid of the bigotry label will be quiet. You can make people read CRT BS but many will never believe it you will heighten resentment among alleged “oppressors”. They may, as JG points out, actually begin to favor racial solidarity for the first time. Thanks.

    Collapse
    1. Barrett W Horne

      I clicked the like heart, but want to say that you have expressed exactly my thoughts. Thank you.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kevin Johnson

        You are very welcome. Thanks for the input.

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Rev Snow

    The stated definition of cancel culture...
    1) The formation of a mob...
    2) ...to seek disproportionate punishment...
    3) ...for statements within the Overton Window.

    Is David missing the point that the aim of cancel culture is to move the Overton Window boundaries? To expand the collection of things that "decent people just don't say" ?

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Justin Perry-Naw Dawg Doctrine

    This was fantastic.

    On one hand, I fully understand the need and importance for addressing these issues on college campuses. These are our future leaders across multiple fields and industries.

    But all of that is happening, while a full-on, (possibly) unconstitutional, takeover of the historically strongly meritocratic biomedical sciences research world is going on. Just in the last year or two, I've seen it go from, as David said on Twitter, a mild nuisance, to it now actually costing people their livelihoods, ranging from lost or ineligibility for funding (including federal tax dollars) for not being the correct race or ethnicity, to not being interviewed at the various levels of our profession (beginning at the grad student level and continuing on through to faculty hiring), and frankly it's quite clear that several of our brightest younger minds will never get their chance to even enter this important world of biomedical science research).

    And I see almost nothing on it.

    Collapse
  9. Paula Weber

    David and Jonah,
    First of all, thank you both for the work you do at the Dispatch. I love being a member here, the atmosphere you all are cultivating, and I have learned a lot about the principles of conservatism - thank you.

    I enjoyed the episode, especially the history.  Would you all be willing to go into more detail about the current culture vs the 90s PC culture especially as regards dialogue about race.  Some of my experience has been colored by explanations that part of the PC movement in the 90s was a desire to grant more respect to previously marginalized groups. Now its maybe turned up to 11 as to the number of groups that are to be granted that respect and what respect is.

    I am also curious what David has to say about evangelicals in general as regards dialogue regarding race and self censorship... in a way his private Christian college was able to have robust debate while "all" agreeing to maintain strict behavioural censorship.  Now we have some leaders in evangelical circles (John Piper, Tim Keller - the Gospel Coalition network really) that I see as leading a dialogue saying as pastors there may be more to do to help with healing of racial wounds in our institutions. But this is a matter of "looking in the mirror", not bringing the mighty hand of the government. Self policing rather than actual policing or by the mob. Thoughts?

    Collapse