....................................................
To Censor or Not to Censor—Notes from the Censored
…the thing that I come to—I used this phrase on TV the other day—the rise of the “but brigade.” I got so sick of the goddamn but brigade. And now the moment somebody says ‘Yes I believe in free speech, but,” I stop listening. “I believe in free speech, but people should behave themselves.” “I believe in free speech, but we shouldn’t upset anybody.” “I believe in free speech, but let’s not go too far.” The point about it is, the moment you limit free speech, it’s not free speech.
—Salman Rushdie, post Charlie Hebo massacre
Higher education should, more than anything else, be a bulwark for freedom of speech and vigorous debate, cornerstones of democracy. Instead, it’s become a bulwark for moderated speech and limited debate. Censorship is bad. Authoritarians thrive on censorship. The more censorship they can get away with, the more power they’ll have. Authoritarians know the term is bad, so have developed a euphemism for it: moderate or moderation. Far too many websites (the sign of the times), educational or other, contain a warning that comments will be “moderated” prior to being posted. Is “moderated” speech free speech? Certainly not! It is controlled speech. Period.
Today, the warning of moderation has become a plague on freedom of speech and vigorous debate. It encourages self-censorship and discourages the courage to express ones opinions and ideas. It is shameful that the bulk of academics either are proponents of it or dare not question and challenge it. The rules of moderation are normally quite vague, thus allotting more power to authoritarians who choose to censor. Inside Higher Ed is itself a euphemism for Inside Moderated Ed. Sadly, Inside Higher Ed, an online journal of news and “moderated” opinions pertinent to higher education, is, after all, part of what Salman Rushdie decried as the anti-free-speech “BUT brigade” (see quote above). Editors Scott Jaschik and Doug Lederman note in their “Comment Policy”:
By its very design and nature as a freely accessible source of news and information about higher education, Inside Higher Ed embraces the small-d democracy of open access (with the occasional messiness that comes with it). But [my emphasis] the conversation into which we invite our readers has its limits—our editors moderate it, using their judgment—and participation in it carries with it some responsibility.
“Their judgement” constitutes a euphemism for “their ideological limitations.” The “but” is, of course, quite vague. In fact, vagueness is the key, for it allows fully subjective determinations by authoritarians, often faceless apparatchiks employed by authoritarians. Normally, as in the case of IHE, their determinations cannot be challenged. There is simply no mechanism in place to challenge them. Jaschik and Lederman conclude their “comment policy” by stating
"Due to the volume of comments on the site, we are not able to respond to individual inquiries regarding comments that were not approved. Inside Higher Ed reserves the right to bar commenters for uncivil behavior or repeated violations of these guidelines."
Thus, and in my particular case of having comments censored, one is left wondering what precisely in a posted comment turned it into a censored comment. And that is bad because it is a debate killer. Any errors in the comment will simply not be pointed out and any errors in the criticized op-ed or article will simply be ignored. So, there is no chance of intellectual development on either side. Note Jaschik and Lederman’s remark that
"If a reader submits a paragraph-long comment and the last sentence contains an attack on
a person or group, Inside Higher Ed will not publish that comment."
What might constitute an “attack” is unsurprisingly not examined at all. No examples are provided. In today’s aberrant, ideologically-driven world, some “attacks” are good, while others are bad. An “attack” can even constitute an uncomfortable fact that angers “a person or group.” If someone states, for example, that Islam is a religion of peace, a comment could be censored if it cited the Quran, “And fight with them until there is no more fitna (unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah.” If an author evokes slavery as a horrible American white phenomenon, for example, a comment could be censored, if it evoked the facts that slaveholders and slavetraders included blacks and Muslims. Censorship could thus be justified because likely some blacks and some Muslims would be offended and feel “attacked.” Thus, Jaschik and Lederman act not only as censors, but also as protectors of the easily offended and/or ideologically protected.
BTW, note that part of the IHE team includes two directors of corporate sales, a chief revenue officer, a director of institutional branding, a client services specialist, four marketing directors, a chief financial officer, and other such business—BUSINESS positions. Evidently, behind the veil of higher education, IHE is in reality probably more a business than an arm of higher education. In fact, that could certainly be said about the bulk of the nations colleges and universities. Perhaps it is the business aspect (the bottomline) that prevents IHE from being an enthusiastic supporter of freedom of speech and vigorous debate.
No less than nine points apt to provoke censorship are listed in the “comment policy.” The first point is clear, though again highly subjective:
1. Commenters must not engage in libel.
Libel of course has a legal definition. In fact, to win a libel lawsuit, one must prove that a statement is not only false, but that it damaged (usually monetarily) a person's reputation. That is why such lawsuits are extremely difficult to win. Sadly, Jaschik and Lederman replace the judge and jury with that regard to the extent that anything could constitute libel if it might be apt to upset the author of an op-ed or article, including fact and reason that might make the author’s statements seem absurd. How can that be higher education?
The second point is quite interesting because the author I criticized in my comment violated it herself, by attacking Trump and young white men… or are those somehow an exception to the rule?
2. Commenters must not engage in an attack on a specific person or group.
Point #5, “Commenters must stick to the subject (or subjects) discussed…,” is equally interesting because the two examples provided can easily be proven to be poor examples of the point made:
"A news article about a financial aid proposal put forward by congressional Republicans
does not clear the way for a derogatory comment about the GOP’s presidential candidate; a
blog post about cultural studies does not invite a comment blasting affirmative action."
In essence, if the GOP’s candidate clearly presents an opposite proposal to that of congressional Republicans, why can’t that be mentioned? “Derogatory” is a highly subjective term. Thus, simply pointing out the conflict could be viewed as “derogatory.” As for the second example, what if in fact affirmative action might be partially responsible for the increase in cultural studies programs because of the possible resultant increase in the numbers of deans of diversity and inclusion? Why should a comment be censored for evoking that possibility?
Point #6 can clearly conflict with Jaschik and Lederman’s statement that “Inside Higher Ed strongly encourages comments to include real names and job titles. Many readers want to know who is making a certain point.”
6. Commenters must not post comments containing spam, commercially promotional material or self-promotional links.
Are not job titles inevitably self-promotional? Point #8 seems also to contradict the statement:
8. Commenters may post comments containing links to articles that back up their points.
In my latest censored comment, I noted the URLs for The American Dissident blog and website, while also including URLs to back and or illustrate points made in the comment. Was the comment thus censored for that reason, despite point #8 because of point #6? Well, I’ll never know because authoritarians never have to explain their decisions. Point #7 is of interest because the censors, uh, moderators imply there is limited space for comments, when in fact essentially the space for comments is enormous.
7. If a commenter makes a point that has been made several times previously in the thread on that article, we may reject it.
Why might a little repetition from commenters be so terrible? In fact, it might serve as emphasis and indicate that the idea put forth is not simply held by one solitary person. Finally, the last point, #9, is also contradictory.
9. Commenters should be concise. We suggest keeping comments to 150-300 words or fewer. Brevity is the soul of wit, after all.
If indeed, brevity were the soul of wit, then why provide so much more space to the author of an op-ed or article, than to criticism of it? If a comment is longer than the maximum permitted, perhaps it should still be allowed if it takes the author to task, point by point. This whole concern of seemingly highly limited space for alt-opinions is fabricated. Long comments can easily be shortened by a “read more” link, for example.
Finally, Inside Higher Ed has been censoring my comments for over a decade now. It shamefully behaves in the same darkness as Google and other ideologically-bound business corporations like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. Higher education needs to open up, not censor and ban in accord with some dubious model of ideologically-driven “comment policy.” My latest censored comment, the one that really instigated this essay was emailed to the author of the criticized op-ed. Surprisingly, she responded, though very briefly and only with epithets. For the censored comment and that email response, see http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2017/08/doug-lederman-and-scott-jaschik.html. Rather than follow in the dubious footsteps of Trinity Washington University president Patricia McGuire, who chose to regress with a flurry of ad hominem-like adjectives, including “not publishable,” “incoherent,” and “vituperation,” why not progress into a point-by-point counterargument, including precise examples to back statements made? The crux of Inside Higher Ed’s problem is not only that it will not publish criticism like mine, but even more seriously that it will not publish any criticism of itself…
