New Zealand catches me between two arms, as it were; one in the past and the other in the present.
The past is a memory. It’s the memory of a man who was an awkward bearded Kiwi law don. He used to invite a number of us who were law students to his rooms in the late evening to argue over ideas. We drank and argued. He helped me to learn to think; more importantly, he taught me never to be afraid of ideas I found alien or alarming.
Later, during the quarter century I taught at university, with a nod to him over my shoulder, I ran an open seminar called ‘Sceptics Anonymous.’ It followed the same principle; anything was up for discussion. We turned ideas upside down and inside out. Sometimes we changed our minds. Just ten years ago, most people thought that was in part what university was for. But in the last few years, things have changed with breath–taking speed.
This last week the Canadian psychology professor Jordan Peterson had the offer of a Fellowship that Cambridge University had made him withdrawn. He found out from twitter. A spokeswoman said “Cambridge is an inclusive environment. There is no place for anyone who cannot uphold our inclusive principles.”
‘Inclusive’ is of course a coded word that has now come to be indelibly associated with the Cultural-Marxist project. It is a word designed to include some values and some people, and emphatically exclude others. Even the word does not tell the truth about itself. And it’s obvious, when you know a little history that Marxism, cultural or economic, doesn’t allow people to voice other ideas. It’s not just Cambridge. Oxford University are trying to harass and shame Nigel Biggar, who teaches that there are two sides to everything, including the legacy of colonialism (education, health, roads, democracy, rule of law etc.)
To many of us it is still mind-bogglingly strange that the whole of our Higher Education system could fall into the hands of people who will only allow certain ideas, outlaw others, and are determined to stop people thinking and discovering for themselves.
And that is exactly what propelled Jordan Peterson to fame. He refused to be told what words he must and must not use. People have since come flocking to listen to him and be inspired.
The Left tried to miscategorise him as ‘alt-right’, hard right, fascist, anything to close him down and shut him up. But they failed. He describes himself as Left in some matters and Right in others; like many of us.
Back to New Zealand and the present. The murderous massacre at Christchurch has been hard to deal with at many levels. Of all events this one required making a distinction between the innocent victims and the association of ideas.
The Media lamented profoundly with the victims; rightly. But so deep did its sympathies run, that it told only one side of a wider story. 49 people were killed by a callous white secular Australian murderer in the Christchurch Mosque. But in the same week, 140 Nigerian Christians were butchered by their Muslim neighbours; and the media were silent. Sometimes what you don’t say is as powerful a way of distorting the truth as telling a lie.
The way we respond to ideas has morphed. They work differently now. We experience them more like a virus spreading a plague than they do building blocks one can take and reshape and build concepts and patterns out of.
Someone discovered a photo of Jordan Peterson taken by a company that makes money through having fans pose next to a celeb.
This fan was wearing a T shirt which said that he was against “paedophilia, rape, wife beating, homophobia, misogyny, violence against women and children.” Not so bad you might think. Who is not against them? But they were a subtitle to “I am a proud Islamophobe.”
It wouldn’t be hard to find people whose experience matched the T shirt. The Yazidis for example. But instead of acting like an idea to be rebutted, or modified or qualified or endorsed, it acted like an infection instead; and because Peterson stood next to it he was infected by association.
Peter Tatchell, whom I have admired for a long time, wrote in the Times recently how he had experienced the slur of Islamophobia when he had protested against an Islamic group called Hizb ut-Tahrir, who endorsed the killing of LGBT people and Muslims who leave their faith. He wants to be able to criticise ideas and not to be thought to be condemning people.
Tatchell’s right. We have to be able to talk about ideas without being accused of hating people. Listening to Peterson, he has been careful to say that Islam lies beyond his area of expertise and he is unwilling to say anything much about it.
If the old universities have given way to doctrinaire censorship and mob rule by the Left, perhaps the only hope is for someone or some group to found a new university, and brand it a ‘university of free speech.’ It might become popular. It might catch on. It would appeal to people who wanted to chose freedom and hope rather than control and fear. There may still be some left.
The Italian marxist, Antonio Gramsci, is often credited with the long term methodology of taking over a society by the gradual taking over its institutions. U.S. public schools have reached that point of thought control. The good news is a ground swell of opposition and derision towards those teachers now making (not earning) $100k per year plus benefits. I’m doing my part. I always refer to public school teachers as over paid and lazy. Everyone agrees. The teachers may be of one mind but the students and general citizens aren’t buying it.
America is different. At one time journalism held to the idea of being the 4th Estate watching over our freedom. No more. The backlash to fake news is significant. The churches such as TEC which have gone off the rails on so many issues are empty. Who in their right mind would seek out a priest or bishop for moral authority? How about all of those scientists with their studies that conclude something may happen when it is just as likely that it won’t happen (inconclusive)? The professors may throw around their credentials like gang signals but they impress few. Just like our president, my days of being politically correct are over.
Embrace truth.
After the New Zealand tragedy we had some political people in Australia, aided and abetted in some ways by the media, saying that the Prime Minister of Australia, who is a mildly conservative man and a committed Christian, was in some way responsible for it. Our government-funded ABC goes out of its way to “sideline” anyone who is either socially or politically conservative, as evidenced during the lead up to the legalisation for same-sex “marriage”. The left-wing PM of New Zealand did a great job in the hours and days following the massacre, but anyone daring to remind us that she is only in government because of a deal done with a right-wing party that has given warnings about Islam is ignored or carefully taken out of the discussion. One great tragedy is that Jordan Peterson seems to be in vary small minority of public figures, academics or otherwise, who actually try to be fair in their dealings on controversial topics.
I guess we have to laugh to keep ourselves sane. Cambridge excludes people because Cambridge is inclusive.
If there is such a thing as a secular prophet, Jordan Peterson sometimes fits that role. He speaks with clarity, with courage and energy. O that he were a born again Christian.
O that there were more Christians like him!
While it was intellectually offensive for the Faculty of Divinity to revoke a fellowship already granted on the grounds of “inclusivity,” rather as I don’t want bishops to be pseudo-politicians so do I not want academics who challenge the ‘accepted’ way of thinking to compromise the authenticity of their message by getting involved in stunts like the one described. With regard to the message of the t-shirt, I can’t but think of Foley Beach’s recent code of ethics for social media, notably (3) WILL IT BENEFIT ALL CONCERNED? and (4) DO MY WORDS REFLECT WELL ON JESUS CHRIST?
Since “phobia” is defined as an “irrational” fear and the commonly advanced fears of radical Islam are perfectly rational (though I assume no one here has a problem with Muslims opposing abortion or protesting mandated relationship education classes), I’m not sure why we have to be “pro” Islamophobia just because the “other side” is against it.
Dr. Bonner,
There is no stunt described. As someone who has contracted hundreds of lecturers and performing artists for several venues, I can tell you that the “meet the artist” is part and parcel of the appearance contract. Photo opportunities, book signings, CD or DVD sales, various after-event receptions are all part of the appearance contract. This varies from “have your photo taken with _________ for free/$10/sponsors only/higher price ticket” to “Meet and chat with __________ at invitation only party for $$$” and are pretty standard, especially when you are trying to keep the ticket price down so students can attend (and therefore need to find other ways to pay for the event).
But in keeping with Foley Beach’s code of ethics for social media-
1)Is it the truth? Does Jordan Peterson necessarily believe anything/everything on the Tshirts of people in his audience?
2) Have I talked to the person before I talk about the person? Did the decision makers at Cambridge discuss this with Peterson, to determine his beliefs? According to several published articles, the answer is no- since he found out about the withdrawal of the fellowship on twitter. Did you discuss the circumstances of the photo with Peterson before publishing your comment above?
3)Will it benefit all concerned? Well, obviously there has been a disservice to Peterson and to students at Cambridge who might have benefited. And publication of the photo and its result have negatively impacted the discussion of the balance of personal liberty and security, as well as discussion of the distinction between rational and irrational fear.
4) Do my words reflect well on Jesus Christ? My own words frequently do not, so perhaps best if I do not comment on this one, other than to point out that in this case, Dr. Peterson is a notable “non Christian” and we have no evidence that the other person in the photo with him is a Christian- so it is more a matter of us examining ourselves and our own comments.
5)Will I have to confess what I have written as sin? In this case, I don’t think so. I am not angry (I am under no illusion about my being “quick to anger”, but not in this case). But I am quite confused by what Dr. Bonner is getting at in his comment. Of course, on second reflection, I will need to confess to the arrogance that comes with the feeling that I have any right to comment on any matter before the church- I am a fallen soul, and not some bastion of the faith.
I bow to your expertise in event-planning; I fear I move in circles where such activities would be unlikely to raise any money (though that might have something to do with the subject matter).
Obviously if Professor Peterson was unaware of the slogan when he posed, my observations are valueless. I was assuming that he embraced the sentiment, which may have been unjust (and even if he did that was still no justification for the revocation of his fellowship). If, as you point out, Dr. Peterson is not a believer then #4 is not pertinent to him, but #3 has general application and I must confess that I had thought that all the principles of the code had secular analogues (but perhaps not).
Incidentally (since everybody here – including myself – agree that academic titles are overrated) I would encourage you to use my given name. Let us preserve “Dr.” for the physicians among us.
Jeremy, I am happy to address you by your given name- the “academic honorific” Dr. is just a habit from working in universities.
As to +Foley’s social media guidelines, they are what we used to call “good manners.” But even there, I do think there is a distinction between social media character assassination, and responding to public statements by public figures.
I spent some time looking about for the photo. The T-shirt is offensive (to me, anyway). I note that in my “research” on the matter, I found Jordan Peterson’s own website, and he has apparently instituted a “dress code” for future photo ops- to avoid a recurrence.