Scott Jaschik and Doug Lederman, Inside Higer Ed

The following essay was published in Journal of Information Ethics in 2018 (see www.proquest.com/openview/f4b8ffae2aca7dc1537f14989914e8bd/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2035668).

....................................................

To Censor or Not to Censor—Notes from the Censored

An Examination of Inside Higher Education’s Comment Policy

…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…  

University of Venus

Express everything you like. No word can hurt you. None. No idea can hurt you. Not being able to express an idea or a word will hurt you much more. As much as a bullet. [...] A lot of energy is wasted on these superficial things [speech codes]... I can’t get upset about ‘offensive to women’ or ‘offensive to blacks’ or ‘offensive to native Americans’ or ‘offensive to jews’... Offend! I can’t get worked up about it. Offend!
–Jamaica Kincaid (Washington Post 1991)

The above satirical watercolor was inspired by the censorship of the comment I posted on Inside Higher Ed regarding the mission statement presented by its new blogging duo of insipidity, the two women depicted in the sketch, the "new breed of heroes,” who created the University of Venus blog (see http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/university_of_venus/mission_of_venus#Comments).
Inside Higher Ed’s other equally vacuous blogs include Mama PhD, Confessions of a Community College Dean, Provost Prose, University Diaries, and The Education of Oronte Chum (see http://www.theamericandissident.org/InsideHigherEd.htm). Ages ago, I’d asked corporate-minded Inside Higher Ed editor Doug Lederman if he would consider including The American Dissident blog with the other blogs listed on his Inside Higher Ed website. In the name of PC, restricted ideas, and limited debate, he chose not to respond. Evidently, The American Dissident blog would have been much too OFFENSIVE in its hardcore questioning and challenging of academics. Today, censors like Lederman were needed to protect the thin-skinned from potentially offensive thoughts and ideas.

The comment that was censored is the following:

Yes, there is a crisis in higher education, but you don’t seem to know what it fundamentally concerns: not flooded markets with overqualified applicants and limited budgets for junior faculty, but rather thinking in the PC box, rampant censorship, careerism, and absence of courageous rude truth telling. Your call for change echoes Obama’s hollow politician’s call for change.
“At University of Venus people raise questions that are not being raised and draw attention to issues that are being ignored,” you state, yet fail to illustrate that assertion with one concrete example. Why?
“…the lives we lead as GenX women,” you state. Will you thus be excluding men, both older and younger? And if so, is that not sexist and ageist? Will you also be excluding older women?
“University of Venus is a global space for building community, empowering people to share their voices and inspiring them to make change happen,” you stipulate, yet fail to underscore which people you seek to empower and what changes you seek to make.
“We are thrilled to be partnering with the expertise of Inside Higher Ed and to be joining with you in creating a larger conversation about the future of higher education,” you state. But are you aware that IHE acts as a PC censor, regularly censoring comments from its forums? Thus, your first step will have to be to accept IHE censorship and keep your feet firmly implanted in the PC box. Yes, change we can count on. Tell me about it, baby, or rather babies!
“If you are interested in writing a guest post or being interviewed for the blog, please send us an email,” you state. Well, I’ve just done that. Will you respond? Will you even be curious regarding my decades-long critique of higher ed (see www.theamericandissident.org)?

Needless to say, as an ardent enemy of censors and censorship, I expressed my indignation to the "new breed of heroes," one of whom responded, though in vacuous fashion:

George,
Thanks for contacting us. I think it is necessary for change to happen across the spectrum of viewpoints and I think your work is just as necessary as ours. Dissidence redraws the boundaries of what is possible.
Mary Churchill

In essence, Mary Churchill, the Executive Director of the University of Venus blog, ignored my censorship complaint. Can one possibly be more hypocritical? After all, how can one create “a larger [more diverse] conversation about the future of higher education” by censoring opinions on higher education that one does not like? By doing so that "larger conversation" will simply remain business as usual... though larger.

Eboo Patel

.............................................................................................................

Censoring Conversation in the Name of Conversation
Only in Higher Education

“Vituperation? Incoherent?” Haha. With this kind of censorship and this kind of groupthink, perhaps they should change the website to "Inside (the Bubble of) Higher Ed.”

—Timothy Bearly 

When I’m on the hunt for grist, I usually turn to Poets & Writers magazine.  However, Inside Higher Ed is also a great provider (e.g., groupthink inanity and safe blather).  It highlights a handful of blogs.  “Conversations on Diversity,” evidently not a very original subject in academe, is one such blog.   On the contrary, my blog is not highlighted on IHE.  It could be titled, “Conversations on Freedom of Expression… with a Particular Emphasis on the Academic/Literary Establishment.”  Brown privilege accords voice to Eboo Patel, Executive Director of Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC).  As for me, I am not accorded voice because I dare criticize the diverse hands that feed, including IHE.  Over the years, I have been openly critical of editors Scott Jaschik and Doug Lederman (see, for example, https://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2019/04/scott-jaschik-and-doug-lederman-inside.html, https://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2017/08/doug-lederman-and-scott-jaschik.html, and https://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2017/08/scott-jaschik-and-doug-lederman.html). 

Inside Higher Ed is of course a business.  Academe is a business.  Free speech is always a threat to business, which is why it is generally suppressed and/or punished by business.  And of course free speech is not really free at all when it is punished.  In any event, Patel begins his blog essay, “Diversity: A Confrontation,” by quoting one of his favorite black-privileged poets, Gwendolyn Brooks:  “Art hurts. Art urges voyages—”  Yet the art that I see nowadays does not hurt at all and does not at all urge voyage.  No matter.  Brooks’s line is certainly sufficiently general to fall into the establishment safe box of acceptability.  

Patel is clearly a diversity ideologue.  And of course reason and facts that don’t fit the narrative have no place in ideology, be it right-wing or left-wing.  It is always easy to find faults in the ideological pronouncements of ideologues.  Patel’s essay focuses on a small neo-Nazi march (a couple of dozen people) purportedly against immigrants (illegal? wage-lowering? criminal?) in Georgia and the protest response against it:  the hanging of portraits of different racial and ethnic faces around Newnan, the town in question.  

“One of the pieces depicted two young Pakistani American women wearing the Muslim head scarf, and Newnan-area Facebook groups lit up with comments like, ‘I feel like Islam is a threat to the American way of life. There should be no positive portrayals of it’,” writes Patel, “(It should be noted, many Newnan residents pushed back against this racism—a positive sign.)”.  

And yet are not the head scarf and burqa signs of female oppression in, for example, Iran and Qatar?  Patel fails to mention that.  He also fails to mention how Islam benefits democracy (e.g., freedom of expression).  Indeed, where in the world has Islam benefited democracy?  Saudi Arabia?  Africa?  Sweden?  Pakistan?  Do rape epidemics and grooming gangs benefit democracy in England?  Islam might benefit diversity in the short run, but sure as hell does not benefit democracy.  Islam runs counter to freedom of expression, a prime cornerstone of democracy.  Islam is not a religion of peace, despite CAIR and Obama’s attempts to portray it thus.  Also, Patel pushes the false narrative that somehow Islam is a race.  It is not a race!  A person who criticizes Islamic doctrine is not a racist.

“I wonder what it would look like for a college campus to do a similar project [i.e., hanging up portraits of different racial and ethnic people],” suggests Patel.  “Well, I would add a little twist to that suggestion.  What if in addition to portraying the racial, gender, ethnic, religious and sexual diversity, we could portray the worldview diversity as well?”  

Hmm.  I’d rather suggest something far more courageous and advantageous to democracy:  highlighting not skin color, sexual orientation, and religion at a college campus where those things likely constitute the prime monkey-see, monkey-do focus, but rather instances where professors and students actually dared stand up on their hind legs to criticize professors and students and administrators at the very college in question.  Now, how would Inside Higher Ed respond to that?  The silence of the academic editors, of course, would be the likely response.  After citing Brooks’s line (see above), Patel writes:  “Note the dash at the end. I’ll get to the phrase that follows at the end of this piece.”  Well, one would expect something a little bit stirring, but here it is:  

Art hurts. Art urges voyages—

And it is easier to stay at home.

Brilliant, right?  Well, can it get any more innocuous than that?  How would that verse possibly upset (i.e., stir) the art and poetry establishment, not to mention the academic establishment, including Inside Higher Ed?  Patel’s final statement is equally feel-good innocuous:  “Let art show us who we are, in all our complexity, and let the new American conversation begin.”  Now, if Patel really would like to open up the borders of permitted “conversation,” as opposed to simply echoing the diversity monologue, then he ought to confront the editors of Inside Higher Ed and ask them why they reject all criticism (conversation!) with their regard.  He ought to ask them why they censor any comments that I dare make on their website.  Isn’t higher ed supposed to be about freedom of expression?  He ought to also challenge Antifa, Black Lives Matter, the Nation of Islam, and CAIR for their anti-white racist stances and hatred for freedom of expression.  Small groups of Neo-Nazis are certainly not the only threat to freedom of expression.  Ah, but Patel is interested in diversity, not freedom of expression/not “conversation.”  Will he respond to the points made in this counter-essay?   After all, he was once named by US News & World Report as one of America's Best Leaders…

Sara Custer Inside Higher Ed

Below is the front cover aquarelle for issue #48, the latest issue published October 2024.  Needless to say, Sara Custer and Inside Higher Ed did NOT respond to the email (see below) and front cover sent to them.  Thus is the state of vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy, in the realm of higher education...

From: George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com>

Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2024 8:05 AM

To: sara.custer@timeshighereducation.com <sara.custer@timeshighereducation.com>; sara.custer@insidehighered.com <sara.custer@insidehighered.com>; Doug Lederman <doug.lederman@insidehighered.com>; scottjaschik@hotmail.com <scottjaschik@hotmail.com>; scott jaschik <scott.jaschik@insidehighered.com>

Cc: kathryn.palmer@insidehighered.com <kathryn.palmer@insidehighered.com>; elizabeth.redden@insidehighered.com <elizabeth.redden@insidehighered.com>; jessica.blake@insidehighered.com <jessica.blake@insidehighered.com>; dari.gessner@insidehighered.com <dari.gessner@insidehighered.com>; publishing@insidehighered.com <publishing@insidehighered.com>; editor@insidehighered.com <editor@insidehighered.com>

Subject: Custer, Lederman, Jaschik satirized in a new P. Maudit aquarelle

 

To Ed-in-Chief Sara Custer, Ex-Ed-in-Chief Doug Lederman, and Ex-Ed-in-Chief Scott Jaschik:

You have been satirized in a new P. Maudit aquarelle (see attached).  If there is an untruth in it, please do let me know, so that I might adjust the aquarelle.  That said, shouldn’t rare hardcore critics be permitted to voice their views in higher ed today?  I think you guys could use a satirical cartoonist, someone who dares criticize the higher ed honchos at the helm… like you.  Hey, I’m actually available to fill such a position!  In that light, I attach my Curriculum Mortae.   Anyhow, please do share the aquarelle with your colleagues and please do publish it in Inside Higher Ed.  Thank you for your hopeful attention! 

Au plaisir,

G. Tod Slone (PhD—Université de Nantes, FR), aka P. Maudit, Founding Editor (1998)

The American Dissident, a 501c3 Nonprofit Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence

www.theamericandissident.org

wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com

todslone@hotmail.com

217 Commerce Rd.

Barnstable, MA 02630

NO RESPONSE.

Censored Yet Again!

Dear Kevin Moist , Associate Professor of Communications at Penn State Altoona, Sherman Dorn , Professor at University of South Florida, Bill Reader , E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University, Earl Nicodemus , Associate Professor of Education:

First I commend the four of you for actually using your real names and mentioning where you “work.” Thirty-five others, likely mostly professors, regarding the Inside Higher Ed article, “Tenured Case Hinges on Collegiality” (www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/01/22/tenure) commented, as you likely noted, anonymously. As for Pamela Morris and Laura Winton, I could not locate their email addresses. They did not mention where they “work.” Is not such widespread anonymity a clear reflection of the fascistic tendencies of our purported institutions of higher learning?

In any case, this email seeks to inform you that Inside Higher Ed regularly censors my comments, though I never make threats and almost never use four-letter words. And I am not the only one being regularly censored. Several others have contacted me with that regard. The question remains: Should a newspaper devoted to higher education in America be into the censorship business? My censored comment regarding the article mentioned above is posted on my blog site [see below]: wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2010/01/censored-yet-again.html.

Perhaps you might—and that would indeed be astonishing—write Editor Doug Lederman (doug.lederman@insidehighered.com) to express your support for democracy and against censorship. In some aberrant manner, Lederman seems to think it amusing that censorship OUTRAGES ME. For a cartoon sketch I created on him as well as a short denunciation of Inside Higher Ed, see www.theamericandissident.org/InsideHigherEd.htm.

Will Lederman now censor all of my comments and, once and for all, render me persona non grata? That possibility in itself ties into the “collegiality” bullshit governing academe. Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

G. Tod Slone, PhD and Founding Editor (since 1998)
The American Dissident, a Journal of Literature, Democracy & Dissidence
A 501 c3 Nonprofit Providing a Forum for Vigorous Debate, Cornerstone of Democracy
todslone@yahoo.com
www.theamericandissident.org
1837 Main St.
Concord, MA 01742

Notes from a Gruff, Censored Professor
Wouldn’t it be nice if there were some kind of central organization where professors of derailed careers, thanks to academic corruption (uh, “politics”), might actually be able to contact one another? Who knows how many of us out there exist? Where are the statistics? In Massachusetts, they’re buried in backrooms unavailable to public scrutiny, thanks to the powerful Massachusetts Teachers Association.
Rather than accept “teaching evaluations” as somehow objective, we should be focusing in on their perhaps often inherent corruption. If you’re liked, the evaluations will be good. If you’re not liked they’ll be bad. The logic is there and will remain as long as “good teaching” remains subjective.
What kind of professor does Ohio want around, obedient, group-thinking herd conformists? Likely. Because that’s the kind of professors other universities and colleges seek. Collegiality is the prime hiring concern, so why shouldn’t it be the prime tenure concern also? How many ads have I seen emphasizing collegiality and fit into the department? 100s and 100s and 100s. How many have I seen for courageous truth teller, daring to actually go against the department grain? Not one.
Inside Higher Ed should not be in the business of censorship (it’s censored at least 7 of my comments, including one made last week), nor should it be in the business of encouraging anonymity amongst grown-up professors. Nearly every comment on this article was made anonymously. Question: What is wrong with academics? Answer: They lack courage and conviction and dignity. How can one trust comments made anonymously? “A driven professor whose generosity is coupled with a sometimes strident demeanor,” note the cowards. Well, what do they possess, sheepish demeanors? And why should Ohio prefer the sheepish demeanor to the strident demeanor; after all, democracy demands the latter, not the former.
“He’s frequently the first to speak up,” note the cowards. Oh, my! How terrible! Am I dreaming here? No, I know higher ed much too well. Let those three female anonymities buck up and build some spine! Feeling threatened is by no means a reason to file a harassment complaint. If the professor in question has no criminal record, they should not feel threatened. Once upon a time, I was evicted from my public college office and building where I was teaching my courses mid-semester because one female professor had complained to the dean that she felt threatened. It disgusts me to this day that such things occur at public institutions in America.
In the public sphere, perceived “bully” and “excessively hostile and belittling” do not negate free speech and citizen rights equal treatment. College professors tend to be notoriously ignorant of the First Amendment. Those three anonymities need to educate themselves and learn to understand that democracy cannot thrive if the citizenry has no spine. Rather than whimper, let them take karate lessons or buy guns! As for the thought that the professor in question might be “mentally ill,” should we be at all surprised? “Anger” is not a sin! Nor is “happy”! Ohio sounds like a true “academic snake pit,” in the words of Nat Hentoff. How does fit in and like minded in a faculty possibly serve students?
Nelson’s comment on “gruff professor” is sadly laughable. Surely, anybody daring to criticize ones colleagues and institution will be perceived as “gruff professor.” Clearing out all “gruff professors” will clear out all criticism and make way for further deepening of corruption. Academe has truly become a frightful institution.
Thanks, “NUTS” for the comment on the disabilities act. It made me LOL… just what I needed.

Doug Lederman and Scott Jaschik

Censored Yet Again on Inside Higher Ed

The left has been praying for an event like the one at Charlottesville.  The left sees right-wing Nazis all over the country, and for that cannot see Muslim terrorists at all.  Finally, their prayers were  answered.  Hardcore left-wing ideology inevitably blocks out uncomfortable and unwanted TRUTHS.  What about the anti-white racist Antifa and BLM protesting instigators?  Silence!  Silence by too many shameful journalists!  After all, if the protesting instigators were not present, violence would likely not have occurred in Charlottesville.  Antifa wants violence.  Antifa got violence.  Why is that not reported?  We hear about white supremacists.  But what about the black supremacists?  Silence.  

It is really sad that so many academics like Patricia McGuire, president of Trinity Washington University (“Charlottesville, American Tragedy Redux”), prefer hardcore ideology (i.e., indoctrination and consequent censorship) to uncomfortable TRUTHS (i.e., education), including blacks were slaveholders in America; whites were slaves; Muslims are still slaveholders and traders today.  Evoke those facts and be “ad hominized" as racist and islamophobe by the ideologically manacled like McGuire.  Reading the latter's article, one would think 95% of southern whites held slaves.  Instead, the figure is more like 5%.  And what about the blacks who sold the slaves in Africa?  Uncomfortable truths!  Silence!  Censorship!  

“The greatest danger the United States faces today is not from a hostile foreign power, scary though the threats may be, but rather from our own domestic terrorists and those who aid and abet them,” argues McGuire.  That has been the left’s spiel.  And yet statistics likely indicate the greatest danger (besides increasing left-wing ideology and resultant censorship, banning, and other affronts to the First Amendment) to be Islamic jihad terrorism.  So much talk about Hitler, and almost no talk about Stalin and Mao, who had many more people murdered!  Why?  Left-wing ideology!  Moreover, Hitler was a devout left-wing socialist, who the left has been trying to turn into a right-wing conservative.  Mussolini, uber-fascist, was a devout Marxist.  

“We must continue to promote education as the best, perhaps only, means to confront our national tragedy of racism,” concludes McGuire.  Education or rather indoctrination?  Promoting ideology inevitably means demoting TRUTHS, including the other side of Affirmative Action (e.g., unprepared blacks intellectually overwhelmed in college).  What might the result of incessant ubiquitous hardcore focus on racism be?  Certainly, the reality has been the increasing divide among the left and right (and blacks and whites) that resulted from 8 years of Obama.  For the left, increasing Stalinist indoctrination is the only way to somehow solve the racist problem, and that includes heavy and constant emphasis on making all whites feel guilty and all blacks feel victimized.  Will it work?  Let's hope not!   

“Charlottesville was yet another act in a long-running saga of racial hatred, writes Patricia McGuire, and the mobs of white men on the march have made the best possible case for affirmative action,” notes a faceless Inside Higher Ed journalist at the very top of McGuire’s article.  Not very objective for a journalist!  Yes, finally we have “mobs of white men.”  But what about the “mobs of black men” in the past riots from Baltimore to UCal?  Was it put that way?  Of course not!  Journalists are the shame of America today because of their egregious lack of objectivity.  Well, will this comment be censored?  Perhaps…  Thus is the way of higher ed today.  [And unsurprisingly, the comment was censored (i.e., removed after it was posted).]

..........................................................

From: George Slone 

Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 6:48 PM

To: editor@insidehighered.com

Subject: Censoring comments on Inside Higher Education

To Editors Scott Jaschik and Doug Lederman, Inside Higher Education:  

Perhaps you ought to at least inform people, whose comments are censored on your website, as to why your decisions were made.  Wouldn't that indeed be helpful in the realm of "let's have a conversation," as opposed to "let's not counter the accepted narrative"?   You have censored other comments I'd made over the years and w/o notification or explanation.  Does that sound like democracy to you?  It sure doesn't to me.  In fact, have I been banned from commenting all together?  My censored comment figures below and will be posted on my website with or without your response.  And I do expect no response.

From: George Slone 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 7:08 PM
To: president@trinitydc.edu
Cc: editor@insidehighered.com
Subject: Re: Censoring comments on Inside Higher Education

To Patricia McGuire, President, Trinity Washington University:
I suspect you are a partisan of censorship of viewpoints you do not like.  If so, that's not very surprising for higher education in this sad day and age of increasing groupthink.  In any event, below is the comment I posted regarding your Inside Higher Education article.  Unsurprisingly, it was censored or moderated as the euphemists like to call it.  And of course it angers me that censorship seems to be the way of higher education today.  But one must still fight on!   You will note, no swear words, no sex, and no threats in it at all.  Ah, but you will also note that it rigorously challenges your assumptions and blindspots.  Thank you for your attention.  BTW, how about getting your library to subscribe to The American Dissident, where your students could actually read and be exposed to such opposing viewpoints.

From: Pat McGuire

Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 8:33 PM

To: George Slone

Cc: editor@insidehighered.com

Subject: RE: Censoring comments on Inside Higher Education

Dear Dr. Slone:

Thank you for your message.  However, you are wrong on many counts.  I have nothing to do with the comment moderation of insidehighered.com, but I can tell you that the comment you offer below [above, not below:  "Censored Yet..."] is incoherent and certainly not publishable for that reason.  As for me, you insinuate a lot about me that’s simply not true, but I have learned through long experience that there’s no point responding to such vituperation other than to thank you for letting me know your thoughts.

With best wishes,

Pat

From: George Slone

Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 8:58 PM

To: Pat McGuire

Subject: Re: Censoring comments on Inside Higher Education

Hi Pat,

Thanks for responding.  I didn't think you had anything to do with censoring out my comment.  BUT I did think you wouldn't care about the comment being censored and would likely not request the two editors not to censor it.  So, I was not really wrong at all on that account.  And at the end of your email, you definitely argued in favor of the censorship incident.  

As far as my comment being "incoherent," how could it possibly have been coherent... for the alt-left?  Also, if it were me, I'd certainly cite an example or two in an effort to back my criticism of lacking in coherence.  You didn't do that.  You simply put forth a general dismissal of all of my comments with one word, "incoherent."  That sort of reaction sadly seems to be widespread amongst academics whenever criticized.  In essence, it is akin to ad hominem.   To argue my comments "not publishable" is really a non-argument, especially when you fail to cite one particular comment that is "incoherent" and thus "not publishable."    

You ought to really contemplate your usage of ad hominem-like argumentation, which is really not a counter-argumentation at all.  It is simply an indirect form of shooting the messenger in an effort to kill his message.  

Why, one must ask, did you purposefully exclude from your article mention of Antifa, which was definitely a part of the Charlottesville problem?  Was that remark "incoherent"?  Why didn't you mention that the cops did nothing to quell the confrontation between the right-wing Nazis and left-wing Antifa fascists?  Was that remark "incoherent"?  Your article really did fail to evoke a lot of what really happened at the Charlottesville riot.  

What precisely did I insinuate about you personally that was false?  Again, you do not stipulate.  Are you not staunch left-wing?  Thus, I cannot even apologize if indeed I were wrong about that or anything else.  Proven wrong, I have no problem at all admitting it openly.  Do you?  

Your final sentence is typical of far too many academics who hate vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy: "there’s no point responding to such vituperation."  Again, you use another ad hominem-like term, "vituperation," and fail completely to disprove anything at all written in my criticism of your article.  It is a great shame that academics like you and academic journalists like those at Inside Higher Education seem to seek to push only one point of view, while crushing any other viewpoints, including mine, that might question and challenge that point of view.  

Anyhow, thank you for responding.  From my rather lengthy decades-long confrontations with academics across the country, responding is quite rare... and thus I sincerely commend you for it.  BTW, I am a libertarian (i.e., staunch advocate of the First Amendment and vigorous debate, cornerstones of democracy).  

Best,

G. Tod

...................

[No further response received.]

Cary Nelson

CENSORSHIP and the President of the AAUP
The history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable. Discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable. To curtail free expression strikes twice at intellectual freedom for whoever deprives another of the right to state unpopular views necessarily also deprives others of the right to listen to those views. [...] If a university is a place for knowledge, it is also a special kind of small society. Yet it is not primarily a fellowship, a club, a circle of friends, a replica of the civil society outside it. Without sacrificing its central purpose. It cannot make its primary and dominant value the fostering of friendship, solidarity, harmony, civility, or mutual respect. To be sure, these are important values; other institutions may properly assign them the highest, and not merely a subordinate priority; and a good university will seek and may in some significant measure attain these ends. But it will never let these values, important as they are, override its central purpose. We value freedom of expression precisely because it provides a forum for the new, the provocative, the disturbing, and the unorthodox. Free speech is a barrier to the tyranny of authoritarian or even majority opinion as to the rightness or wrongness of particular doctrines of thoughts.
—Woodward Report to the Fellows of the Yale Corporation (1975), which set a standard for freedom of expression at Yale and for the rest of the nation

Inside Higher Ed, an online academic publication, has been CENSORING my voice for several years (see http://www.theamericandissident.org/InsideHigherEd.htm). There’s not much a staunch individual like me can do to contest incidents of censorship. Last year, I informed Cary Nelson, tenured English professor and president of the AAUP, that my opinion regarding his IHE essay had been censored. Nelson did not respond. Yet, Nelson is the author of No University Is an Island: Saving Academic Freedom. That's right: SAVING ACADEMIC FREEDOM! So, how does he define academic freedom? The freedom to be PC indoctrinated? The freedom to CENSOR and condone CENSORSHIP?
Thus, I satirized Nelson in the above cartoon. The only thing a lone free-speech advocate can do against the Nelsons (and Ledermans) is satire and posting blog entries. Fortunately, posting such entries enables recusant voices like mine to be "heard" on the Internet. Thus, when someone googles Doug Lederman (editor of InsideHigherEd.com) or Cary Nelson, he or she will eventually find my CENSORED opinion. Both of those fellows, if they had it their way, would likely desire to "filter" or "moderate" all such opinions on the Internet. Thankfully, they do not yet have their way. One day, I suspect, however, they will have their way as the cloud of PC Big Brother and Big Sister gets larger and larger.

Both Lederman and Nelson have been duly informed about this blog entry. Below is the harsh comment I tried unsuccessfully posting on Inside Higher Ed regarding Nelson’s self-serving, book plugging essay, “Solidarity vs. Contingency” (see http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/09/07/nelson), which makes him appear to be on the side of the “working” academic and further enhance his “tenured radical” image. But he is one of those riding on the comfy bullet-proof academic gravy train, a "successful" academic ladder climber. The comment below contains no threats, no four-letter words, and no pornographic images. It is thanks to the Ledermans and Nelsons that higher education has become anything but an arena for vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy.

Inside Higher Ed Censored Comment
It is difficult to believe in the sincerity of a Cary Nelson who perhaps earns upwards of $100,000 per year as a full-time tenured English professor at a big university teaching perhaps six measly courses per year, if that. It is indeed difficult to believe in an academic ladder climber, who once was a hippie. Indeed, how facile for Nelson to proclaim solidarity and equity, while enjoying what inequity and lack of solidarity have accorded him as a professor over the years: a life-time pass on the ivory-tower gravy train. Would Nelson be willing to scale down to the $20K per year those like me earn as adjuncts? Doubtfully. Would he be willing to give up just half his big salary, teach a few more courses, and spread the cash equally amongst adjuncts at his particular university? Now, that would be more than mere socialist feel-good jabber!
“Why congratulate ourselves for selling out?” asks Nelson, though I’m not convinced he realizes the depth of that selling out. And how to trust someone like Nelson who will not even stand up to decry censorship in academe? The last comment I’d posted regarding one of his articles was censored, and in vain I’d brought that to his attention. Nelson simply did not respond. Was I, an unconnected adjunct, simply naïve in thinking he might respond?
Nelson’s proclamation is as unrealistic and unattainable as it gets. The future is not in tenure and the cocoon security and salary that tenure affords professors. The future is online and the future is adjunct. I am happy with that situation because if it did not exist I would be without employment today. The Nelsons would certainly not be writing me three letters of recommendation or otherwise backing my quest for tenure. The AAUP and state college union stood idly by when I once fought corruption in the ranks.
Nelson’s comparison of adjuncts with sharecroppers is pitiful nonsense. Adjuncts are educated, while sharecroppers clearly were not. Adjuncts do not toil in unsanitary, menial, and physically exhausting hardcore labor. Adjuncts can seek employment in other spheres, while sharecroppers generally were stuck. Nelson belittles the tough life of sharecroppers by making such a comparison! One would have to believe that he’s never known the tough life of physical labor.
Unfortunately, I could not bring myself to finish reading Nelson’s lengthy article, stopped where he plugs his book, and wondered what he’ll be doing with the cash from book sales. Will he be refurbishing his little wainscoted luxury apartment or expensive home?
The problem with academic freedom is that tenure tends to be granted to those who would never speak out of line to begin with. In other words, it tends to be wholly unnecessary. Tenure tends to be awarded to those who play the game—to those who kowtow to the department chairperson Nelsons in power. I’ve seen it. I know it. Tenure has become in itself a rot in the heart of democracy, for it is a sham, a risible front. With all the tenured professors in the nation’s colleges and universities, how not to wonder why free speech and vigorous debate, democracy’s cornerstones, seem ever to be in peril in those very colleges and universities (see thefire.org). Indeed, it seems the tenured professors themselves are bent on keeping it that way. Yes, students, burn and steal those conservative newspapers! Yes, students, heckle that conservative speaker so he can no longer be heard! We’re in full solidarity with you. A-men.