The Liberal Echo Chamber
JOHN BURCHFIELD
|
Rob Maclachlan
center, though usually in an intellectual establishment sort of way,
rather than setting off bombs or even burning trashcans and breaking
windows. According to publications I found through the UUA, political
identification is 6:1 democrat/republican. There are more UU
"independents" than out-of-the-closet republicans.
I personally have been doing social/intellectual connection mainly via
Twitter (@robamacl). Whatever sort of niche attitudes and values you
have, there are almost certainly at least 100's of people with similar
views out on the interwebs.
UUs are very much part of the elites which the populists would like to
see humbled. I expect many UUs are feeling a lot of cognitive
dissonance with the Trumpist populism. Some are trying to cope by
framing Trump as just another republican. Others are incredulous at
Trump thumbing his nose at the meritocratic technocratic policy wonk
crowd. This is largely where the New York Times is. While in many
cases the NYT writers are likely correct in calling Trump policies
simplistic and unworkable, at the moment Trump's populist supporters are
absolutely delighted at the screams of outrage and disdain coming from
the coastal intellectual establishment.
You or others on this list might be interested in
http://heterodoxacademy.org/
This is an organization and web site for academics against left
orthodoxy, one of the founders is Jon Haidt, author of "Righteous
Minds", see http://righteousmind.com/
Rob
Leo Nagorski
John,
I guess I’m a bit confused in that you (and perhaps Nicholas Kristof) are lumping together a number of different things which are not really alike.
“Political correctness” in its most accurate definition means someone being in some sense “officially” punished or penalized for expressing an unpopular and/or minority viewpoint.
The way I see it discussed in your e-mail suggests that anytime anyone disagrees with someone else’s opinion, that automatically constitutes “political correctness”. That was Trump’s whine throughout his political campaign. He would get up to a podium at one of his rallies, express his opinion for two hours and leave. Then later, when people registered their disagreement with the things he said, he would go on some talk show or tweet that he was a victim of “political correctness”. No, he wasn’t. He expressed his opinion, and then others expressed theirs. That’s free speech, not political correctness.
Also, the First Amendment does not guarantee protection to everyone in every circumstance resulting from their free expression. The most obvious examples are: if you are on the witness stand in court, lying like a rug, you could find yourself in jail for perjury; if you accuse someone of a heinous crime in your newspaper or on your TV network, you can be sued and your victim may win; if you insult your spouse’s mother you may end up sleeping on the couch for a month. None of that is political correctness.
But, it gets even more complicated. There may be (in my opinion) common sense reasons for common sense rules regarding what is appropriate speech in certain circumstances. For example, during the O.J. Simpson trial there were many private and public employers who would not allow their employees to watch the trial on TV at work (during breaks and lunch) Why? Because their workers were spending the rest of the day arguing with each and not getting any work done. In some cases, there were even fights breaking out. Likewise, most private and public employers have rules about how you can interact with your coworkers. You can’t demean your co-workers with offensive language, etc. Why? Because the employer doesn’t want a bloodbath in his/her office or shop but would like work to be done. Additionally, if one were to ask the employees themselves, the vast majority would probably prefer a worksite where people weren’t always in danger of being attacked and had to always watch their backs. A peaceful work environment is in everyone’s interest.
The case can also be made at the university level in some situations. When students go to university they should expect to have their ideas challenged. But, I doubt that any of the students or their parents expect or want to be attacked (or have their children attacked) for their very “being”; their ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. We have seen examples of people who committed or almost committed suicide because of cyberbullying. They didn’t do it because some articulate conservative made a cogent argument about why it’s a good idea to eliminate social security. They did it because of personal attacks leveled against them which had nothing to do with philosophy or political expression.
Also, regarding organizations like UU, Humanist groups, etc. In any organized group, like governments or even social groups; there can be a danger of political correctness – if by that one means official punishment or penalties for expressing an unpopular view. But, the mere fact that in any particular group someone is challenged when they express an opinion that the others don’t agree with is not political correctness. If, because of the 7 Principles, more Liberal religionists join UU than Conservative Evangelicals because they think UU expresses their viewpoint; that’s not political correctness; just as it isn’t political correctness when a Humanist group consists mainly of people who think that scientifically valid evidence is important when discussing issues requiring scientific answers to problems. Also, keep in mind a cold hard fact about free speech rights, they are usually only enforceable in the public domain. As a longtime labor activist, I’m familiar with an unpleasant reality expressed in the phrase, “The Bill of Rights stops at the employer’s front door.” That means that, by law, when you are at work, you are viewed as being on private property where the employer sets the rules. One reason that unions and government action is so necessary even today is because every right workers win has to be backed up by a law compelling safe work sites, fair working conditions, non-discrimination in hiring, etc.
Finally, freedom of speech implies others’ freedom to discount and, yes, even ignore speech they find offensive, dumb, or just plain silly. It may not be fair in the would-be speaker’s mind, but it isn’t political correctness. One can’t force people to listen or read their opinions if they don’t want to do so. Consider: there were many union members who ignored the advice of their union leadership and voted for Trump despite the fact that the leadership presented good reasons why Trump was not going to be the friend of those workers. They voted for him anyway. I would argue that they made a big mistake that they will pay dearly for over the coming four years. But, the fact that those workers ignored good advice was not political correctness. They exercised their right to listen to whoever they wanted to.
Leo
From: humanistco...@googlegroups.com [mailto:humanistco...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of JOHN BURCHFIELD
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 4:27 PM
To: Humanist Group <humanistco...@googlegroups.com>; Steve Hirtle <shi...@gmail.com>; Victor Grauer <vict...@verizon.net>; Michael Houlahan <mhoula...@gmail.com>; David Herndon <dher...@first-unitarian-pgh.org>; Richard Haverlack <r.hav...@comcast.net>; James DeHullu <jdeh...@verizon.net>; Scott Smith <scottbrad...@gmail.com>
Subject: The Liberal Echo Chamber
This article from the New Republic recently turned up in my inbox: The Myth of the Liberal “Echo Chamber” on Campus
|
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Humanist Community of Pittsburgh" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to humanistcommunit...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to humanistco...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/humanistcommunitypgh.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
|
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
|
Rob MacLachlan
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to humanistcommunitypgh+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to humanistcommunitypgh@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/humanistcommunitypgh.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Humanist Community of Pittsburgh" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to humanistcommunitypgh+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to humanistcommunitypgh@googlegroups.com.
Leo Nagorski
Hi Rob,
I think one of the problems is not so much with the specifics of the beliefs and opinions sometimes as with HOW those opinions are held. For example, there are people of all different religious beliefs in this country who, by and large get along with each other. But, there are some who see themselves as right and everyone else as wrong (and therefore evil). The examples I cited were to point out that life is complex and stark distinctions between white and black in a world where most issues are characterized by many shades of gray may not be the best tool for dealing with disagreements. One of the sayings that applies to this is one whose author I forget, ”The most difficult issues to resolve are not those of good vs. evil but rather of good vs. good.”
If one examines the history of court cases involving the Bill of Rights one soon realizes that they haven’t ever been seen as “absolute”. Why? Because sometimes there are other goods to be considered. For instance, at Allegheny e had, like other UU churches, small groups (sometimes referred to as covenant groups). These usually were related to a specific interest but not always. In the first few meetings the group usually set up some guidelines as to how the group would conduct itself such as not interrupting or cutting off someone who is speaking, for example. I have been a member of a number of discussion groups (both online and in person). They all had these kinds of guidelines. Those guidelines actually facilitated rather than hindered our discussions.
Everyone has their own particular tastes about things. You dislike David’s sermons because you feel his calls for social action are too in your face. Years ago, when a friend of mine, Paul Beattie was minister at First Church, he alienated many members because he didn’t believe that churches should engage in any “corporate” social action, only individuals. I know because at the time some of those members would come over to Allegheny on Sunday mornings. The same is true of styles of service. Some people like services with New Age themes and music, others don’t.
I also think that there is a difference between “institutional” issues and “organic” issues. An institutional issue would be if an organization had specific rules against specific viewpoints or issues for which one could be penalized, and the “organic” would apply to the fact that a particular organization may have a certain makeup. For example, for most of its history, Allegheny was overwhelmingly Humanist. That didn’t mean that others were barred from joining, just that the general ambience was humanistic. When my wife and I went to Boston several years ago we checked out different historic UU churches. One of them was King’s Chapel. It is considered to be the denomination’s most conservative (at least religiously) church. Its approach is UU Christian. Again, no one is denied entry or membership because of belief, but because of its “ambience” the church attracts other UU Christians. The difference to me between the “institutional” and “organic” is that in the first there may be official abuses of power which would need to be addressed. For example, I remember a UU friend of mine who moved to the Midwest from Pittsburgh. He called me one night to explain a problem he was having in his UU church out there. It seemed that the church had a variety of interest groups; Women’s Spirituality, Interweave, Social Justice, UU Christian, and Humanists. All of the other groups except the Humanists were given Sundays to present a service. My friend found out that the Program Committee consisted of members who were anti-Humanist and regarded Humanists as “too radical”. I advised my friend to talk to the minister and the Board of Trustees. Once he did that, equity was achieved. The “organic” situation is a little different. You don’t always have control over who joins. When I first joined Allegheny, I was the youngest member. Most of the members were in their sixties or older. It’s not surprising that most young people did not flock to join a church where they say few people who looked like them. Allegheny has for at least the past 50 years tried all sorts of ways to attract an ethnically diverse population with only marginal success. Other UU churches have been successful in doing it, others have not. There can, of course be overlap between members who are of a particular mindset who then get into positions of power and seek to use their viewpoint as a cudgel against those they disagree with. That’s obviously wrong.
Leo
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to humanistcommunit...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to humanistco...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/humanistcommunitypgh.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Humanist Community of Pittsburgh" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to humanistcommunit...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to humanistco...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/humanistcommunitypgh.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Humanist Community of Pittsburgh" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to humanistcommunit...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to humanistco...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/humanistcommunitypgh.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Rob MacLachlan
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to humanistcommunitypgh+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to humanistcommunitypgh@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/humanistcommunitypgh.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Humanist Community of Pittsburgh" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to humanistcommunitypgh+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to humanistcommunitypgh@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/humanistcommunitypgh.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Humanist Community of Pittsburgh" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to humanistcommunitypgh+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to humanistcommunitypgh@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/humanistcommunitypgh.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Humanist Community of Pittsburgh" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to humanistcommunitypgh+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to humanistcommunitypgh@googlegroups.com.