• Puppet’s Puppet

    We know this was difficult, and we will always love you–just as before, and just the way God made you. But since your article seems mostly to summarize Prof. Levy, and comment favorably on his contribution, it’s not clear exactly what former disagreements you are changing your position on.

    To me it seems Levy was largely successful in shining some clarifying light on the relationship between the organizing norms of the university and the political concept of free speech. He was a lot weaker in his ambition to translate this into a more charitable view of the actual student protesters. I struggle to think of a single case where students have had their conversational spaces denied in the name of “free speech”–unless you count those student organizations that have had their speakers banned or their speeches physically disrupted, their newspapers destroyed, their signs mutilated or torn down entirely, their booths attacked with physical violence, their opinions accused of “silencing” others, and so forth. We might also add to this category that number of philosophers who have openly and explicitly declared it their mission to banish Christian philosophers who debate points of Christian behavioral ethics from the discipline for “hatred.” Also in need of some old-time academic “religion”: those academics who have proposed various racists, sexists, and flimsily alleged racists and sexists to be blacklisted from the academy on that basis rather than professional misbehavior or poor research quality; those who declare the rough-and-tumble of academic life as it currently stands to be too frightening for women or such; and generally those who have sought to pollute the pure perlocutionary purpose of academic conversation–namely, to search for truth–with various social justice desiderata. By all means, have Levy educate these people about what our project really is.

    Not every standup comedian, breitbart.com headline, or drunk uncle at Thanksgiving dinner has based their rants against the “snowflakes” on accurate accounts of academic norms, of course. But for the most part, every critic of the protesters with the slightest connection to academia has delivered a criticism completely consonant with Levy’s observations; and every defender of them has either attacked a straw opponent or expressed values incompatible with the academic mission or otherwise delivered an argument that is just plain sloppy.

    The reality and seriousness of the internal, self-inflicted assault on traditional academic values should have become an order of magnitude more obvious and alarming in the year since Levy gave his talk, not less.

    • Theresa Klein

      Right. Nobody’s defending Campus Republicans walking into the African American students association and starting political arguments. And if you’re going to make the classroom a safe space, it should be safe for *everyone*. That means, no political talk whatsoever. Not liberals get to speak but conservatives don’t, which is what actually happens in practice.

      • Sean II

        Indeed it’s usually the other way around.

        Some dissenter group holds a purely elective event in some remote corner of campus at 6:00pm, and people who never needed to hear a word of it “come to the nuisance” in order to be aggrieved.

        This behavior is quite the opposite of what one would predict using Levy’s ridiculous “we have work to do” theory.

        • Theresa Klein

          Right, yeah.

          There are actually intellectual lines of inquiry with a conservative bent that get stifiled because of the campus atmosphere, so that it is impossible for conservatives to “get work done” in the current environment.

          For example, example (say) market-based mechanisms for handling environmental issues. You often see environmental activists protesting things like GMOs and conservative climate change skeptics. Suppose students decided to “no-platform” a climate change “denier” (not beyond the realm of imagination) – how can any critical discussion of climate research be conducted in an environment where skeptics aren’t even allowed to talk?

          This is why conservative intellectuals tend to work at think-tanks instead of in academia. It’s not “safe” (in exactly the same sense that is being used here) for conservatives to conduct their work in academia.

  • Except that you are giving a respectable sense to ‘safe space’ and assuming that the term as ordinarily used is being used in that sense, which is not so. Why do you want to muddy the issues? It is as though you want to give some appalling practices a respectable face so that everything can carry on in the same way. As with Jacob’s original post, it looks like the attempt of an apologist to dupe us.

    • Sean II

      Yep. There’s nothing more to this than equivocation.

      As used by everyone except J. Levy, “safe space” means “place where I don’t have to hear dissenting opinions” – i.e. “place where people who disagree with me aren’t safe”.

      As used by J. Levy, “safe space” means “just, you know, that thing which happens anytime you limit the scope of a discussion for any reason, including time, relevance, emphasis, etc.”

      Adding Munger’s endorsement to that clumsy, contrived, and obviously purpose-built definition brings the worldwide total of its known users to two.

      • Sean II

        I hasten to add…

        The usual solution offered to this problem is “bring ideological diversity to campus”.

        But as Levy’s post shows, that’s far less important than bringing in a bit of intellectual rigor.

        “Allow me to defend X. But first, incidentally, let me change the definition of X.”

        Arguments like that – having an atmosphere where arguments like that don’t even stand out – are a bigger problem than political bias.

    • Jeff R.

      The charitable interpretation, I think, is that they don’t want to admit their students’ budding Maoist tendencies because there’s little they can do about it and who knows, they could be the ones the mob turns on next, so they try to rationalize the students’ behavior, like a wife who sees her husband popping increasing numbers of pain pills and concludes that his back must be hurting him worse than ever.

      • Sean II

        There may be an element of that. “Hey there, growing monster, here’s a treat. Don’t forget to kill me last!”

        However I think the more likely story (for Levy especially) is an end-stage case of novelty bias.

        You know the drill: an incident like Middlebury or the Christiakis Affair happens, and as a local wise man you are expected to SAY SOMETHING. But all the somethings which are right and true have been taken. Somebody else said that shit faster than you could. Maybe better than you could too. So the solution is to bend over backwards searching for something no one has yet said…and the usual result of that search is you end up grasping onto some consulted bullshit with no truth value. But by god, it doesn’t matter, because you avoided the really terrible thing, which is saying something boring.

        • ‘consulted’? Is that a typo?

          • Sean II

            Yeah, but I thought I caught it before clicking “post”. Something screwey in DISQUS if you can still see it.

          • It has changed now.

      • I suspected that it might be symptomatic of a need to fit in. As you say, who will the mob turn on next? But even before then, there is the discomfort of being out on a limb or of being shunned by one’s colleagues if one does not play the game. Perhaps they feel they have to compromise to make life tolerable. Personally, I would rather cut my dick off than compromise on this issue. I don’t think I could work or study in academe as it now is.

  • Jeff R.

    You were both wrong. Brennan’s post preceding this was much better.

    • Sean II

      Yes, it was.

  • King Goat

    One thing that I think gets lost a lot, probably much easier and strongly among libertarians given research on their general personality types (less sociable, more abstract, less involved in ‘community’), is that institutions of higher education are not so much rarefied, abstract classrooms and debating societies as they are literal communities. People of all different backgrounds live, eat, play, work out, etc., in close quarters there. Classrooms and debating societies are indeed places where there should be vigorous debate and free exchange of ideas, but very few people and communities are characterized by this. In one’s home, friendship cliques, churches or community there are usually places to retreat from constant debate, especially when that debate involves highly charged topics like the goodness or self worth of groups you belong to and which are meaningful to you (note, this *should* mean giving white male students some respite from ‘white privilege’ lectures as much as it would a break from ‘mansplaining’ for women or lectures on how blackface should be reconsidered for blacks). This isn’t going to appeal or resonate much with many libertarians, of course, they don’t put much of a value on (or maybe understand) that kind of thing. Combined with a tendency to chafe more relatively under requests to restrict their speech (or anything, I tend to call it Walter Sobchak thinking), requests for ‘safe spaces’ are, of course, going to draw a predictably virulent response.

    • Sean II

      “In one’s home…there are usually places to retreat from constant debate.”

      Clearly you didn’t grow up Irish or Jewish.

      • King Goat

        Irish-that’s what the bathroom was for (well stocked with magazines) 😉

    • Theresa Klein

      So, by way of response, I have actually encountered a couple of examples on social media recently in which people essentially responded to a very civil comment disagreeing with someone else comment with “How dare you disagree with my comment? I come here to have my feelings validated!” I.e. People think that their entire social media sphere is, or should be, a “safe space” and that everyone in it is somehow obligated to express only sympathy and agreement. The problem is that these environments are networks with people of varied opinions, and expressing some political opinion and then expecting NOBODY to say anything in disagreement in fact kind of creates an “unsafe” space for people who do disagree. People do not want to create the impression of tacit support for something by staying silent. A comfortable space for campus liberals to express their opinions and feel validated is, by definition, an unsafe space for conservatives to express their opinions. Saying “You must validate my feelings and make me feel safe!” Is a demand that everyone pretend to agree with you, even if they don’t.

      • King Goat

        Theresa, there’s lots to agree with in what you say here. I think a difference might be this, you notice a lot of the brouhahas have not been about political discussions such as ‘we need lower/higher tax rates for corporations’ or ‘health care policy should look like this,’ instead they tend to be about subjects like: are women inherently worse at math? is blackface ok? are blacks genetically inferior to whites? Etc.,. In other words, they’re not about political policy so much as they are about what I guess might be called ‘identity politics’ issues. Now, fellows like Sean will see the wicked hand of a cabal of leftists enforcing a tight grip of political correctness on those around them, but I think there’s a much less sexy and gripping thing going on. The thing about such issues is they call ones very inherent worth into question and they harken back to some very ugly times where the answers to those questions led to some very ugly things done to people. These are the kind of thing very few people talk about in *any* environment in which diverse populations find themselves together, from workplaces to PTA meetings. *Some* of that is out of a sense of fear like that which anti-pc activists invoke, but I submit its more of the kind of ‘fear’ a non-religious person feels when gabbing at a social event where they know at least some of the others there are highly religious, and, most people not being jerks who like offending people needlessly, they therefore try not to say something on the topic of religion that will do so.

        Now, in one sense colleges are different ‘events.’ In the classroom people kind of have to challenge ideas, even ‘identity politics’ ones, for the college to function like it’s supposed to. But in another sense colleges are communities one lives in with others, and like all such places, talk in the ‘identity politics’ area is usually avoided by people with good social sense, because a cool, disinterested conversation about how some in the room are inferior is almost always rather boorish behavior.

        • Theresa Klein

          What’s funny is of the examples I mentioned on social media, one was about whether the tax deduction for employer-sponsored health care should be removed. One was about school choice. And one was about whether it was a good idea to “no platform” Milo Yiannopolos at Berkeley. I mean, seriously, someone literally decided that they felt “unsafe” because someone didn’t agree with them about tax policy with respect to health care.

  • Ben Kennedy

    Jacob wrote:

    They aren’t saying “we want to shut down debate on campus.”

    Except sometimes they are saying this, quite explicitly, with calls for “no-platforming” controversial speakers. I respect the attempt at charitability here, I only wish the “safe-space” advocates would return the favor and not do things such as call Charles Murray a white supremacist

    • Theresa Klein

      I agree. The article does little to address the reality that the demand for “safe spaces” often very much IS a demand that the entire campus and every classroom in it be a “safe space”. Also the demands to shut down speech almost invariably happen when it’s conservatives talking. I’ve been in classrooms where people engaged in extended political discussions with a left-wing bent and nobody shouted “safe space” to get everyone to shut up. It’s almost exclusively used to create an environment where only left-wing opinions may be expressed, NOT to create an apolitical classroom.

      • Sean II

        “This is library.”

    • Fallon

      Charles Murray is a neo-eugenicist and a racialist. Of course this involves classic racial supremacy. Look at all of the Pioneer Fund and Mankind Quarterly researchers Murray and Herrnstein relied on for The Bell Curve (TBC). Arthur Jensen, Pioneer Fund grant recipient, believes that man divides into ‘subspecies called races’. (Jensen, 1998) Jensen, like Herrnstein, advances a racialist and classist hereditarian hardline; meaning, educational interventions for minorities and poor whites is a waste of resources because the social world is largely a reflection immutable and inherent biological properties. Richard Lynn, hardcore eugenicist and racist to the point of advocating separatism, is a key ‘expert on racial differences’ (per TBC) for Murray, Hans Hoppe, and the who’s who of white nationalists. Then there is JP Rushton, also of the Pioneer Fund. Rushton truly believes that the larger the penis the smaller the brain function and diminished capacity for morality and economic success. Which of Rushton’s racial groups do you suppose Rushton literally discovered to have larger penises and smaller brains: Caucasoids, Mongoloids, or Negroids?

      That BHLs like Jason Brennan, Michael Munger (through John Anomaly), and Kevin Vallier wish to go beyond merely defending Murray’s free speech and association rights to praising Murray’s work is a head scratcher. It’s not that they are white supremacists like Murray but that they do not take care to understand that ‘libertarian’ is too often a euphemism for white supremacy these days.

      That BHLs have failed to notice that Murray, like Jensen before him, and ‘Milo’ recently, deliberately race baits (with disregard for history) in order to provoke a predictable and equally sad mob response is yet another disappointment. It is partisanship and in-group mentality masquerading as protection of free speech. So, Kettle of Establishment Marxists meet the Pot of Establishment Libertarians and Conservatives….

      • Theresa Klein

        This is basically guilt by association.
        Murray isn’t Rushton, nor is he Jenson.

        • Fallon

          Even if it was ‘guilt by association’ your charge does not establish ‘innocence’. Again, Murray and Herrnstein do not come up with theories of their own. Their data and ideas when discussing race and class come from hardcore racists and classists. I will even say this without judgment. Because it often appears that these people really believe in what they are doing and their conclusions. You would have some traction if you said that Murray is not as racist as Richard Lynn. But your total dismissive says something about you more than anything else.

        • Fallon

          Psychologist Jefferson Fish edited a compilation critiquing the hereditarian and racial school of intelligence. Some of the authors that went after The Bell Curve made it clear that to do so appropriately would mean addressing its roots in Jensen, Rushton, Lynn, and Herrnstein’s earlier works. These critics include hard science guys like Joseph Graves and Bernie Devlin. Fish added:

          “I would like to add my concern that, by giving credence to Rushton’s arguments because they could be mobilized to support The Bell Curve’s social program, Herrnstein and Murray (1994) took an unnecessary and highly questionable step. Libertarianism and eugenics are two distinct ideologies, and to the extent to which eugenicists advocate governmental action (as they did with disastrous results earlier in the century) they are in opposition. Most libertarians are antiracist and view slavery and segregation as key American examples of the dangers of governmental power. Herrnstein and Murray could have based their “meritocracy” argument solely on inherited individual differences in intelligence and could have attempted to limit debate to that issue. They made clear they understood that one could not generalize from individual differences to group differences, and yet they argued specifically for inherited group differences among people categorized into races. In so doing, they did not consider well-established knowledge in evolutionary biology and physical anthropology about the nonexistence of races. This is another important way in which the book’s poor science has done real social harm.”

          (25-26, Race and Intelligence: Separating Science from Myth, 2002)

      • Ben Kennedy

        I think you can make a case for Milo as a professional provocateur, less so Charles Murray. You get a lot of bad policy prescriptions when you assume that every “disparate impact” across races is due solely to racism, and in some cases these policies are actively harmful.

        • Fallon

          Wow did you not respond to the key point. There is this mind numbingly dumb assumption among libertarians and conservatives that Murray isn’t racist. Well, not so fast. Those accusations have legs. Only useful idiots would fail to see otherwise.

          • Fallon

            er ‘fail to see this’.

          • Ben Kennedy

            You’ll have to define ‘racist’, which means different things to different people. Simply noting that different racial groups have different distributions of attributes is not ‘racism’ under any definition I find meaningful.

          • Fallon

            Your vagueness in handling ‘racism’ is more telling. It’s like you know Murray’s script. Or, as well, the most common race realist intro line I have encountered in these past 3 years I have studied it. It’s you that has to define race. Pioneer Fund types– I have mentioned a bunch that are go to guys for the TBC authors — tend towards a 19th century essentialist view that denies modern biology and perpetuates classic racialism. However, there are no human subspecies. Race is largely a social construct with varying features around the world. Perceptions of race do not reflect underlying biological diversity. Murray and Herrnstein do not take ample care to even make the distinction between ethics and physicality. Given their sources– I would say this is deliberate.

          • Ben Kennedy

            I’m partial to the Steve Sailer working definition of a race being a “partially inbred extended family” (hopefully, mentioning Steve hasn’t completely triggered you). I don’t know what views you are referring to, I’m just making a common-sense observation. Go to a mall and look around at the various couples and families if you would like a real-time illustration. Of course people from different extended-family groups get together all time, which is fine. It’s just the exception rather than the common case

          • Fallon

            “Triggered”. Good one. Ha.
            Steve Sailer is a ‘race realist’ like those I have mentioned. And others– like Jared Taylor and Sam Francis. Sailer’s definition is like Jello. Just not something you can really work with– although its flexibility permits Sailer to do his racist bit. He writes for Taki Mag doesn’t he? Or is that guilt by association? Christ.

            Observations at the mall? Really? That’s a substitute for hard science?
            At least quote some Razib Khan or Bruce Lahn or something.
            What you are saying is that you are a racialist but have little basis beyond folk myth. Try hard science. It works. Might be scary. You might get triggered.

          • Ben Kennedy

            Yes, get yourself to a mall, or any public place. Now don’t be alarmed, but prepare yourself to learn that humans don’t just randomly mate with anyone else. It’s true! They in fact organize themselves into distinct clan-like structures. “Race” can be one word used to describe this phenomenon, you are free to suggest others. It is a useful definition because it encompasses the dynamic that creates distinct groups that are not “racial” per-se, e.g. Pakistani Muslims and Indian Hindus, or Rwandan Hutus and Rwandan Tutsis. And like any sets of clans, there are possibilities of average cultural and genetic differences across clans. This is what it means to be a “partially inbred extended family”.

            Now, I suppose we’d also disagree on what it means that 42% of the fall enrollment of Cal Tech are asian, or that 86 out of 86 starting cornerbacks and tailbacks of the NFL are African American. If you would like to use your hard science background to enlighten me, be my guest. If your explanation is “racism”, then you have an uphill battle to persuade me

          • Fallon

            It is unfortunate that you cannot respect the difference between physicality and culture.That to understand real human biodiversity is to examine the details under the microscope and as well in the social world.The intricacies of culture, phenotype, ‘genes’, and history show non-linear relationships that strongly suggest that nature and nurture in of themselves are not easily separable from one another.

            Sailer seems to make race a tautology, a tautology easily discernible at the mall. Well, duh, families are indeed related. Sailer’s negligence is in how he ignores the demand for up-front empiricism hard science empiricism– that should come before even using the word race. How could one ignore the lab work of Richard Lewontin, and the many others after him, that have given physical proof to the idea that “There is more diversity within groups than between them.” Although Sailer covers his essentialist view with the usual reifying social data: it is a posteriori. Sailer’s hypothesis on race is akin to astrology.

          • Ben Kennedy

            Cheer up, I said quite clearly, “there are possibilities of average cultural and genetic differences across them”. I am fully aware of the interplay between culture and genetics.

            The definition is more than a tautology because it gives a clear picture as to why race exists (basically reproductive patterns), and the familiar concept of “family” nearly encompasses the previous mentioned interplay of culture and genetics. Compare to “race is a social construct” which tells us nothing about the phenomenon that is quite obvious.

            And yes, there is more diversity within groups that between them. But that doesn’t change the fact that group averages exist, and this provides more explanatory power then simply “because racisim”

          • Sean II

            Following this exchange makes one thing perfectly obvious: whatever you bought at the mall, you paid for it with a Pioneer Fund disbursement.

            Fallon must be off his game, or he would have pointed this out sooner.

          • Fallon

            Pioneer “Fund”? Oh I meant Pioneer *Fun*. Hit it boys! (Music starts playing, scantily clad show girls with ‘Oklahoma’ themed ‘kinis dance their way over to Sean II. One holds a glass while another pours… “Is this seat taken?” yet another doll says while eyeing Sean II’s lap….

          • Fallon

            Playing Sailer’s astrology card again I see. Anything fits that hypothesis. It indeed has universality– “family” yada yada yada– important if you are going to use the word race as an explanatory. But it lacks concreteness. All too convenient for Sailer and other r– oops.

            Here– this paper by Alan Templeton, a molecular geneticist, might persuade you out of the anti-science bubble.It might be a little scary out there. You can no longer hide behind the all too comforting PC v. anti-PC charade. But if the snowflakes can make it– maybe you can too.

            Free download. Hard science. You are welcome.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/

            In this great review of evolutionary biology’s various ways of modeling and quantifying human diversity– much of it at the molecular and DNA level, where they can track and infer gene flow, drift, mutations,etc, going back over a million years: not one model concludes that race has a universal biological meaning in humans. Sure, there is a lot of diversity but no groupings that permit a universal usage of ‘race’. There are, however, races in our nearest relative the chimpanzee– calculated using the same exact methodologies and criteria for biological race applied across any species– including humans. Humans do not even come close to the racial threshold.

            So when it comes to explanatory power– if there are no human sub-species (races) what does this do to biological determinist and hereditarian arguments?

          • Ben Kennedy

            Heh, that paper is funny. It concedes immediately that there are “adaptive traits” among populations. The rest is word salad explaining how what people understand as “race” cannot possibly be these “adaptive traits”. This is not hard science, it is playing with semantics. In the section that address the question of “adaptive traits” vs race directly, it says:

            “No guidance, other than cultural preference, is given for choosing which adaptive trait should define the ecotypes that are regarded as races, and which ecotypes should not be regarded as races. Hence, equating ecotypes to races, even if limited just to humans, does not yield an objective, culture-free definition of race.”

            Who said there should be an objective, culture-free definition of race anyway? Of course there isn’t. Depending on culture and context, some groupings are more relevant than others. People use the concept of “race” fluidly depending on who they want to include or exclude depending on circumstances. The paper is just attacking a strawman.

            Not to mention, adaptive traits actually matter in practice. At some point you have observations like what I mentioned before. 96/96 of starting NFL cornersbacks and tailbacks of the NFL are what people generally refer to as “Black”. 42% of the race-blind fall class of Caltech is “Asian”. As far as I know, skin color doesn’t make you perform well on a football field or in academia, so *something* is going on here

          • Fallon

            Sociologists, race realists, anti-racists, nazis, social-justice warriors, psychiatrists, you-name-who, etc, use race as an explanatory factor.They invest ‘race’ in terms of nature and nurture.Their conclusions often inform how to treat people and public policy.

            It seems utterly logical to want to investigate what the underlying reality is concerning race. What of it is testable? Can this testing help illuminate some of the markers between possible causes and effects, nature and nurture?

            Templeton reviews several very sophisticated evolutionary histories and their methodologies– and none of them found race to be biologically valid. You want to deny this based on your personal wishes. You would like it to be about Templeton but he is relaying the info. You think by killing the messenger that somehow it destroys the message. Fat chance.

            But thanks though. You have said a lot about yourself and the alt-right. ‘Race doesn’t need a universal meaning.’ When in doubt there is always postmodernism.

          • Ben Kennedy

            The problem with Templeton is, as I said earlier, he seizes on a definition of “race” that nobody actually uses to determine if it is “biological”. Maybe people in the 19th century though that black people were a sub-species, but nobody thinks that today. He then concludes race isn’t “biological”, when again it takes about 5 seconds of observational effort to notice that yes, there are biological factors associated with what is popularly understood as “race”, and he even acknowledges this through his use of the term “adaptive traits”. Which are, guess what, biological!

            Now, I don’t think race explains things at the micro level, as in a specific person with ancestry X will engage in behavior Y because of some ancestry. There is a lot of variation within a race. However when you get to populations, it is reasonable to say given a random population group with a specific ancestry, would would expect some things to be more generally prevalent than others as compared to other population groups

  • D Hampton

    “There is a big difference between claiming universities should be safe spaces — that’s absurd — and claiming that universities should not promote internal safe spaces — because safe spaces are really just another name for freedom of association.”

    So… you’ve basically signed on to Levy’s strawman framing of the argument.

    That second issue, the one you’re defending, isn’t actually something that is under attack. Nobody is trying to ban students or student groups from renting exclusive spaces and closing the doors.

    It’s the first issue – the one you’re disregarding – that is actually at stake at many universities: Whether the whole campus should be a lop-sided and highly politicized “safe space” that is “safe” from dissent to far-left wing ideology and anything that might hurt the feelings of its advocates.

    • Craig J. Bolton

      As King Goat notes above, that would be fine if all the opinions being expressed were sufficiently within the norm that they aren’t tantamount to attacks on others. It seems that many of the contributors to this thread are arguing for a state of affairs that never previously existed on the college campus – the right to be a deliberately offensive ass. The usual response to an assertion of that right was, exactly, that those who couldn’t help themselves should rent an exclusive space and close the door. The space in question was typically a Greek fraternity or sorority.

      • D Hampton

        If you let left-wing ideologues decide on a case-by-case basis what is “offensive” or “tantamount to an attack”, then banning “only” those things is exactly the same as allowing only speech that affirms left-wing ideology and the feelings of its advocates.

        The usual response to an assertion of that right was, exactly, that those who couldn’t help themselves should rent an exclusive space and close the door.

        The conservative or libertarian campus events that were shut down by leftist mobs in recent months, were reclusive (single room on campus rented for an hour or two during off hours) and exclusive (admission tickets sold beforehand).

        Each time, the leftists organized to actively seek them out and shut them down, e.g. by physically blocking doors so attendees couldn’t enter, causing violent tumults so that police had to come, crashing the room and non-stop shouting so loud that the speaker couldn’t be heard, storming the stage and attacking the speaker, etc.

        Each time, their stated justification was some variation “our campus must remain a safe space”.

        Considering this reality, it is incredibly dishonest for Levy and Munger to pretend that “safe spaces” means free association for everyone.

        • Sean II

          “…it is incredibly dishonest for Levy and Munger to pretend that “safe spaces” means free association for everyone.”

          Even more obviously so if you watch what happens inside those spaces once they are made “safe”.

          It’s not about puppies and crayons at all. When these kids take control of an environment, they don’t get nice, they get nasty, turning on each other in various acts of intersectional cannibalism. Turns out that no matter how many AEI fellows you chase away, there’s always someone in your midst who can be described as the most privileged oppressor in the room.

          “Straight black men are the white people of black people!”, and all that.

          What happened at U Missouri gives the clearest indication so far where the safe space movement leads; namely, back to dis-integration, back to the idea that women can really only be safe where there are not men, blacks where there are not whites, etc.

          • Craig J. Bolton

            You know, the more I hear about this “problem” the more peculiar it become. It sounds like the perfect academy, in the view of certain people, is one where Klans people can freely mingle with Nazis under a Confederate flag and crucify snowflakes who dare to challenge them. You know, The Good Old Days.

          • Theresa Klein

            There are some really offensive people who have been “no platformed” recently. But there are also some people like Christina Hoff Sommers where students have demanded a “safe space” because she questioned the concept of rape culture and some of the rape statistics.

          • Theresa Klein

            At times intersectionality descends into a battle to determine which group of people, defined by their racial/sexual/ethnic identity, gets to claim the title of most victimized. Ultimately this just serves to reveal the absurdity of the entire identity politics project. You can get into these finer and finer gradations of privilege and victimization, and more and more hair-splitting arguments about whether it’s worse to be transgendered or disabled, to the point where you might as well abandon the whole thing and treat people as unique individuals. You can’t tell anything about someone by looking at what identity groups they belong to, and it’s counter-productive to try.

      • Theresa Klein

        If you look at some of the opinions being attacked, in some cases we’re talking about things like wearing a race-centric halloween costume. (i.e. Yale)
        Are you really likening wearing a Sombrero to advocating the racial inferiority of Mexicans?