Campus Echo Chambers

After Donald Trump’s election, some universities echoed with primal howls. Faculty members canceled classes for weeping, terrified students who asked: How could this possibly be happening?

I share apprehensions about President-elect Trump, but I also fear the reaction was evidence of how insular universities have become. When students inhabit liberal bubbles, they’re not learning much about their own country. To be fully educated, students should encounter not only Plato, but also Republicans.

We liberals are adept at pointing out the hypocrisies of Trump, but we should also address our own hypocrisy in terrain we govern, such as most universities: Too often, we embrace diversity of all kinds except for ideological. Repeated studies have found that about 10 percent of professors in the social sciences or the humanities are Republicans.

We champion tolerance, except for conservatives and evangelical Christians. We want to be inclusive of people who don’t look like us — so long as they think like us.

DWags wrote:Spot on. TN, I just see such a close minded divide happening that in both sides it becomes (became?) institutionalize. Even on this board you have people who are so entrenched in their dogma that if you try to make a point they will bring it back 99 degrees or 120 degrees to something else completely and just are incapable of engaging you in a debate of anything else. It's frustrating.

The_Dude wrote:Author has a point. Liberals are obsessed with diversity of everything except thought.

Turtleneck wrote:

The_Dude wrote:Author has a point. Liberals are obsessed with diversity of everything except thought.

This is an ironic post.

Turtleneck wrote:

The_Dude wrote:Author has a point. Liberals are obsessed with diversity of everything except thought.

This is an ironic post.

Rocinante wrote:I don't believe Universities are the liberal bastions that the right attempts to paint them as. Young people tend to be liberal. Young people populate campuses.

steveschneider wrote:I think the coasts are just a light year ahead of the middle of the country on social issues. Our eyes glaze over when we hear a lot of the debates going on in the middle. It's frustrating because we want other things to be at the forefront of the discussion and it's still abortion, race, gay marriage etc. A lot of that was settled for us in the 70's.

We get out of our bubble but we still see the electoral college gives more power to Wyoming and other parts of rural america, and most of our taxes goes towards fixing their roads/infrastructure. Yes, us liberals cluster together on the coasts but we have legitimate frustration.

I'd counter to Kristoff, that the country bumpkin should get out of the woods and come to New York city for a week. Spend time in a diverse city that thrives. Enjoy the food, music, art and culture and it might open some doors.

DWags wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

This is an ironic post.

I'd refer back to my first point. You won't be able to engage in intellectual debate. I admire your effort though, and your first point is very poignant.

steveschneider wrote:I think the coasts are just a light year ahead of the middle of the country on social issues. Our eyes glaze over when we hear a lot of the debates going on in the middle. It's frustrating because we want other things to be at the forefront of the discussion and it's still abortion, race, gay marriage etc. A lot of that was settled for us in the 70's.

We get out of our bubble but we still see the electoral college gives more power to Wyoming and other parts of rural america, and most of our taxes goes towards fixing their roads/infrastructure. Yes, us liberals cluster together on the coasts but we have legitimate frustration.

I'd counter to Kristoff, that the country bumpkin should get out of the woods and come to New York city for a week. Spend time in a diverse city that thrives. Enjoy the food, music, art and culture and it might open some doors.

Rocinante wrote:I don't believe Universities are the liberal bastions that the right attempts to paint them as. Young people tend to be liberal. Young people populate campuses.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

steveschneider wrote:I think the coasts are just a light year ahead of the middle of the country on social issues. Our eyes glaze over when we hear a lot of the debates going on in the middle. It's frustrating because we want other things to be at the forefront of the discussion and it's still abortion, race, gay marriage etc. A lot of that was settled for us in the 70's.

We get out of our bubble but we still see the electoral college gives more power to Wyoming and other parts of rural america, and most of our taxes goes towards fixing their roads/infrastructure. Yes, us liberals cluster together on the coasts but we have legitimate frustration.

I'd counter to Kristoff, that the country bumpkin should get out of the woods and come to New York city for a week. Spend time in a diverse city that thrives. Enjoy the food, music, art and culture and it might open some doors.

not a bad idea... but they're boycotting Broadway shows now.

steveschneider wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:not a bad idea... but they're boycotting Broadway shows now.

Yeah, and to Kristoff's point a lot of people just despise those people when they do that and look down at them in condescension.

I agree people need to get out of their bubbles, but that argument as of late has been aimed at college folk and people that live in liberal bubbles. We are not the only ones that need to get out of our bubbles.

AnomanderRake wrote:I would be happy to have an intellectual discussion with a Trump supporter, but I have yet to come across one that isn't incredibly misinformed.

Occasionally I will meet a conservative that while not enamored with the Republican party, still votes republican based on fiscally conservative views. That I can at least understand, but ironically, Trump is the least fiscally conservative Republican to run for President in my lifetime.

Generally these conservatives will also have fairly rational views on foreign policy, social issues etc but they're the exception and not the norm in my experience.

When it comes to social issues, I won't make any concessions to the stated republican platform though.The party's official social views are purely based on religion and fear, and have no place in my vision for the USA.

By Lucía Martínez Valdivia October 27 at 8:20 PM
Lucía Martínez Valdivia is an assistant professor of English and humanities at Reed College.

At Reed College in Oregon, where I work, a group of students began protesting the required first-year humanities course a year ago. Three times a week, students sat in the lecture space holding signs — many too obscene to be printed here — condemning the course and its faculty as white supremacists, as anti-black, as not open to dialogue and criticism, on the grounds that we continue to teach, among many other things, Aristotle and Plato.

In the interest of supporting dissent and the free exchange of ideas, the faculty and administration allowed this. Those who felt able to do so lectured surrounded by those signs for the better part of a year. I lectured, but dealt with physical anxiety — lack of sleep, nausea, loss of appetite, inability to focus — in the weeks leading up to my lecture. Instead of walking around or standing at the lectern, as I typically do, I sat as I tried to teach students how to read the poetry of Sappho. Inadvertently, I spoke more quietly, more timidly.

Some colleagues, including people of color, immigrants and those without tenure, found it impossible to work under these conditions. The signs intimidated faculty into silence, just as intended, and these silenced professors’ lectures were quietly replaced by talks from people willing and able to carry on teaching in the face of these demonstrations.

No one should have to pass someone else’s ideological purity test to be allowed to speak. University life — along with civic life — dies without the free exchange of ideas.

Fortunately, there is a rival view of democracy in the United States — one that does not look to absolutist individual rights, but rather bases itself on an ancient tradition of community self-rule known as civic republicanism. The most important articulator of this point of view in the United States is Alexis de Tocqueville. In the 20th century, civic republicanism has been defended in deeply innovative ways by philosophers like Charles Taylor as well.

Civic republicans believe that unlimited individual freedom is not a good in and of itself. Rather, individual freedom is good only insofar as it helps promote the continued practices of democratic self-rule. Civic republicans view certain rights as mandatory for self-rule (e.g. habeas corpus) but they also see individual freedom as something that is only accomplished together by a community. Within civic republicanism, therefore, there is a basis for publicly deliberating over when speech should be protected and when some other public good requires balancing.


To be clear, civic republicanism does not get rid of hard cases. But it at least makes it possible to talk about when forms of speech are imperiling the very way of life that forms the basis for democracy. A society so awash in racism, xenophobic propaganda and hateful speech that it could no longer remain together within a civic space would not remain a democracy for long. Civic republicanism holds that democracy must always wrestle with the difficult question: What does maintaining our free institutions require today? Viewed in this light, the universities are not so much rejecting democracy as wrestling with one of its central dilemmas.

Turtleneck wrote:Well...a more nuanced look, and some rather strong points along the way...

Fortunately, there is a rival view of democracy in the United States — one that does not look to absolutist individual rights, but rather bases itself on an ancient tradition of community self-rule known as civic republicanism. The most important articulator of this point of view in the United States is Alexis de Tocqueville. In the 20th century, civic republicanism has been defended in deeply innovative ways by philosophers like Charles Taylor as well.

Civic republicans believe that unlimited individual freedom is not a good in and of itself. Rather, individual freedom is good only insofar as it helps promote the continued practices of democratic self-rule. Civic republicans view certain rights as mandatory for self-rule (e.g. habeas corpus) but they also see individual freedom as something that is only accomplished together by a community. Within civic republicanism, therefore, there is a basis for publicly deliberating over when speech should be protected and when some other public good requires balancing.


To be clear, civic republicanism does not get rid of hard cases. But it at least makes it possible to talk about when forms of speech are imperiling the very way of life that forms the basis for democracy. A society so awash in racism, xenophobic propaganda and hateful speech that it could no longer remain together within a civic space would not remain a democracy for long. Civic republicanism holds that democracy must always wrestle with the difficult question: What does maintaining our free institutions require today? Viewed in this light, the universities are not so much rejecting democracy as wrestling with one of its central dilemmas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/12/08/free-speech-absolutists-arent-protecting-democracy-they-may-even-be-endangering-it/?utm_term=.9b6e3a5b77e5

Cameron wrote:
Perhaps I'll get around to it later.

tGreenWay wrote:Turtleneck being a smartass dick... as usual.

Turtleneck wrote:

Cameron wrote:
Perhaps I'll get around to it later.

Trust me when I say we are all going to be on pins and needles until you do.