EclectEcon

What Questions Are Off-Limits for Academia?

• Is it acceptable to ask whether there really was an historical Jesus?
• Is it acceptable to ask whether cold fusion will ever be a possibility?
• Is it acceptable to ask whether Ashkenazim Jews are, on average, smarter than Sephardic or Ethiopian Jews?
• Is it acceptable to ask whether blacks are, on average, better athletes than whites?
• Is it acceptable to ask whether socialism does a better job than capitalism at looking after the poor?
• Is it acceptable to ask just how many people were killed by Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Turkey, the Hutu, the English, Americans or Canadians conquering First Nations people, the Japanese in their conquests of Korea and China?
• Is it acceptable to ask whether members of different racial groups are more susceptible than others to some diseases?
• Is it acceptable to ask whether fiscal policy is ineffective as an economic stimulus?
• Is it acceptable to ask whether, on average, roughly speaking people of one race tend to be smarter or cleverer or have better memories than do people of other races?

You get my drift, I'm sure. ... if you do, please kept reading. Are there some questions it is just wrong to ask in the first place, never mind the answers? How do you decide which questions are acceptable and which ones aren't? And more to the point, how should a university (or any other institution or group, for that matter) set guidelines as to which are the acceptable and which are the unacceptable questions to ask? Is it good policy for universities to say, "We'll wait until we see the answers"?

What prompts me to ask these questions? This column in a recent London Free Press. 

It says, in part,

This week, Western’s psychology department finally called [the late Phillipe] Rushton’s research for what it is. Racist...

“Academic freedom and freedom of expression are critical to free scientific inquiry,” the statement said, “However, the notion of academic freedom is disrespected and abused when it is used to promote the dissemination of racist and discriminatory concepts.

“Scientists have an obligation to society to speak loudly and actively in opposition of such abuse.”

Would it have been acceptable to the university and to the psychology department if Rushton had asked the questions he asked but had come up with the answer, "There was no statistically significant difference"?

If so, then it must be that what people objected to was his answer, and not his asking the question. If they didn't and don't like his answer, they should have blown him out of the water, academically. However, contrary to the implications of this column, most open minded people who were openly hoping David Suzuki would demolish Rushton in a debate sponsored by the university back then, reluctantly realized that's not what happened. Suzuki's only point was basically, "How dare you assert such things?" He presented zero evidence to show that Rushton was wrong. I note, too, that the linked column provides no references to what I would hope is abundant literature dispute Rushton's claims. I know there's a wealth of literature arguing that he was wrong; but I also know that there is a wealth of literature arguing that he was right.

I will not defend Phillipe Rushton's findings. I didn't like them. I will say, however, that he was always calm and mild-mannered, as the column says, and it was very difficult for someone not up on the literature to argue with him.

More to the point though, is that the recent denunciations and apologies by the Psychology Department at The University of Western Ontario should send a strong shiver down the spines of all academics still teaching there. It says, in essence, "Yes, we believe in academic freedom... so long as we like your results."

It should not be a matter of liking or not liking results. It should be a matter of furthering academic inquiry. If it's okay to ask certain questions only if we like the answers you get, I fear for the future of academic and intellectual curiosity and questioning.

 

Confessions of an "Outside Agitator": I'd do it again

From September, 1965, until July, 1967, I attended The Chicago Theological Seminary and lived on the South Side of Chicago. During that period we participated in numerous civil rights marches and numerous anti-war demonstrations. At every one of those events, I was outside my neighbourhood and, in many cases I was in a different city. I was one of the many, many outside agitators. And I'd do it again.

On the civil rights front, our seminary was a hotbed for activism. We were a de facto base for Martin Luther King's civil rights activities in the summer of 1966, while Jesse Jackson was a student in the seminary (a year ahead of me). We marched in Skokie and Gage Park and other places I can't remember. I even trained to be a safety marshal on those civil rights marches. We were determined to be non-violent. We demonstrated for a break down of racial barriers in housing and jobs in particular, and we had considerable success along those lines legally and nominally (or so it seemed; I think we had far less success on the schooling front.). Yes, we lectured people about racism, but we had specific, achievable goals as well.

On the anti-war front, we traveled to Washington DC for an antiwar demonstration (only about 25,000 in total) in the spring of 1966, and we traveled to New York for a massive march against the war (hundreds of thousands) in the spring of 1967.

Also in Chicago at the same time, there were race riots, especially on the west side. We thought we understood much of the frustration of black people in Chicago and we hoped their actions would lead to more action on the housing and jobs fronts. We didn't condone the fires, looting, or the shootings, but we understood a chunk of the frustrations. That same summer, Detroit experienced devastating race riots, as did other cities.

While the two actions, marches and riots, were linked in their underlying causes, they manifested themselves very differently. King, Jackson, the SCLC, and all the civil rights demonstrations had specific goals: We may not be able to change people's minds and hearts, even though we wanted to, but we can at least make laws and practices combine toward providing more nearly equal opportunities and protections. We white people knew things had to change legally and governmentally to achieve the desired goals.

At Iowa State, from 1967 - 1971, we continued our activism, joining and participating in movements to end the war in Vietnam and to fight racism on campus.

How does that relate to today?

First, I present my background above in part, I'm sure, as virtue signaling, but also to draw what I think are some truly important contrasts between then and now.

I believe there is systemic racism. I had thought that by providing better housing, job, affirmative action, etc. policies, things had improved substantially for non-whites. I hadn't imagined the strength of the systemic racism until I saw black students cheering wildly when O.J. Simpson was found not guilty. I agreed the crown had not made its case, but their wild cheering made me realize there was a gulf to which I had been blind. I kept asking myself, "What has happened to these kids? They are cheering that he was freed because he was black, not because the crown didn't make its case." I realized I didn't understand. And I had no idea what it was I didn't understand.

Further, when I knew people were making decisions in the 2008 US election based on race, I knew there was endemic racism. It hurts. It hurts that it's there, and it hurts that it affects us all in so many ways we don't know or comprehend. And it hurts that it creates a gulf that I'm not sure we can entirely bridge.

Today's clashes remind me of the summer of 1966 but with one major exception. The protests back then had specific, achievable goals. I'm not sure what the goals of today's protests are, other than to impress upon us the extent of racism. When politicians in Canada (e.g. Stockwell Day and Doug Ford, inter alia) deny there is systemic racism in Canada, they are clearly out of touch. Ford understood it and backtracked, to his credit.

Here's a more direct goal for current protestors, then: If we haven't stopped extreme police brutality against non-whites, let's work to stop extreme police brutality. Let's limit police "qualified immunity"; let's maybe even make police pension funds liable for civil damages resulting from police brutality to create an incentive for police officers to police other officers. Let's roll back the phenomenal macho-brutalism in the police forces, and let's roll back the extreme militarism of the police forces. If police can't do these things at all, they can't do them to non-whites. My more recent Facebook postings point in these directions.

I'd like to add, "And let's have more discourse so we can try to understand each other," but that may be more pollyannaism than a real goal; I don't see it as a very successful strategy. I anticipate that the discourse that will likely emerge will be dominated by political posturing, playing the victim or race card, playing the law and order card, virtue-signaling, distortions of facts (see every headline in every media source, right or left), misuse of data, et cetera, et cetera.

I see it all the time on Facebook. Hell, I know I'm even part of it sometimes. People lash out with memes, misrepresentations, and ad hominems, et cetera, without addressing important issues fairly.

It is time for us to admit that there is systemic discrimination.

It is time for us to do what we can individually to try to overcome it in ourselves.

It is time for us engage in discussions and not arguments.

And it is time to try to address potential feasible solutions.

I'm lucky. I have friends from all over the place, politically, geographically, religiously, racially, LGBTQ-wise, etc. I am confronted by conflicting arguments and flame wars all the time. They upset me and disturb me, but I rarely unfriend or block anyone involved in these events.

And yet, they tear me apart inside.

Medical Marijuana

From an article in last year's JAMA [Jl of the Amer Med Assoc]: (via Jack)

Results.... Compared with placebo, cannabinoids were associated with a greater average number of patients showing a complete nausea and vomiting response ..., reduction in pain ..., a greater average reduction in numerical rating scale pain assessment ..., and average reduction in the Ashworth spasticity scale... . There was an increased risk of short-term AEs  [adverse events] with cannabinoids, including serious AEs. Common AEs included dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, fatigue, somnolence, euphoria, vomiting, disorientation, drowsiness, confusion, loss of balance, and hallucination.

Conclusions and RelevanceThere was moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome. Cannabinoids were associated with an increased risk of short-term AEs.

 It's time to let consumers decide whether they want to try marijuana to treat some of the symptoms.

The Sad, Painful Truth: Nationalism Trumps Freedom

via Jack from this source.

Trump isn't winning because he's a buffoon. If anything, he is winning despite being a buffoon. He is winning because he understands that nationalism is more important to real-world conservative politics than free market dogma, and he offers what conservatives care about: a populist nationalism that is inflected with conservative policy commitments but by no means limited to them.

The Chicago Statement on Academic Freedom

It shouldn't need repeating. The Economist has a good article about academic freedom in this week's issue.

The Chicago Statement on Academic Freedom as summarized in the article:

“It is not the proper role of the university to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive,” it states. “Concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable.” The responsibility of a university, it concludes, is not only to promote “fearless freedom of debate”, but also to protect it. ...

Even the Chicago Statement has reservations. Expression that “invades substantial privacy” or “constitutes a genuine threat” can be punished. The university has the right to regulate the “time, place and manner of expression”, so that ordinary activities are not unduly disrupted—though this should never be used to undermine an “open discussion of ideas”. The statement is, in short, written not only to allow speech, but to facilitate protest. When it first appeared, this may have seemed a bit academic. Not any more.

I was lucky. I did my undergraduate studies at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota, in the 1960s. We had speakers from "Fair Play for Cuba", the ACLU, The American Nazi Party (George Lincoln Rockwell), and socialists (Norman Thomas) to name a few, not to mention the "sex seminars" that discussed, gasp!, pre-marital sex.

This Renewed Support for Academic Freedom

Regular readers of Eclectecon know that I have championed academic freedom for decades. They also know that beginning with very early posts, I vehemently opposed any attempts to ostracize or boycott Israeli scholars. I went so far as to obtain academic affiliation (albeit nominal) with Bar-Ilan University and the University of Haifa, just to make the point that anyone who wanted to boycott scholars from Israeli universities would have to include me in the boycott.

On January 16, 2016, the American Association of Universities re-issued the following statement, opposing any boycotts of Israeli universities or Israeli scholars [h/t Canadian Academics for Peace [CAP] in the Middle East]. Even if you disagree with what Israel does in the west bank, this is the right position.

The Executive Committee of the Association of American Universities strongly opposes a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. Three U.S. scholarly organizations have now expressed support for such a boycott. Any such boycott of academic institutions directly violates academic freedom, which is a fundamental principle of AAU universities and of American higher education in general.

Academic freedom is the freedom of university faculty responsibly to produce and disseminate knowledge through research, teaching, and service, without undue constraint. It is a principle that should not be abridged by political considerations. American colleges and universities, as well as like institutions elsewhere, must stand as the first line of defense against attacks on academic freedom.

Efforts to address political issues, or to address restrictions on academic freedom, should not themselves infringe upon academic freedom. Restrictions imposed on the ability of scholars of any particular country to work with their fellow academics in other countries, participate in meetings and organizations, or otherwise carry out their scholarly activities violate academic freedom. The boycott of Israeli academic institutions therefore clearly violates the academic freedom not only of Israeli scholars but also of American scholars who might be pressured to comply with it. We urge American scholars and scholars around the world who believe in academic freedom to oppose this and other such academic boycotts.

The CAP notification reads:

As many of you know, the Association of American Universities (AAU) represents 60 U.S. and two Canadian public and private research universities, including McGill University and the University of Toronto. On January 14, 2016, AAU’s Board of Directors re-released their 2013 statement in opposition to academic boycotts of Israel.  

Related articles

Boycotts. Again.

Long-term Strategies, Israel, and the Status Quo

Scholars without Borders

I have long been opposed to proposed boycotts of Israeli and Jewish scholars by those who disagree with Israel's policies in the Middle East. I've been writing about my opposition off and on for over a decade on my blog. I even went so far as to acquire affiliations with Bar-iLan and Haifa universities.

I recently learned of a group of scholars that has been created and which reflects my views. Steve Horwitz writes,

I do not support the BDS movement's attempts to quash academic discourse, put a stop to intellectual exchange, and turn scholarly work into a political tool. I will not join their boycott of Israeli academics or those of any other country. Boycotts can be legitimate and effective tools, but not when they are used against innocent people to punish them for the actions of their governments.

Because of that, some friends and I made this. I know that not all of you will agree with us. I hope that those of you who do will sign your names and share this widely.

I urge others who share our views to join the group. Scholars without Borders.

Central Control and Generics vs the Value of Choice

When I was an undergraduate nearly 97 years ago, I had a professor [Ada M. Harrison] who opined that we didn't really need all those different brands of toothpaste or bar soap. I questioned her assertion, suggesting that consumers like choice and value different flavours, smells, textures, and packaging. She essentially poo-pooed this thought. She was a brilliant professor, probably the best professor I had in economics as an undergraduate. And yet she had this notion that variety and consumer choice is somehow somewhat wasteful.

She got her PhD from Harvard/Radcliffe, though, so I guess it's all understandable.

The elitist centralist interventionists of this world tend to downplay the value consumers attach to choice and variety.

E.g. Bernie Sanders, as is emphasized in this meme that has circulated on Facebook [via Leon Drolet and Tom Palmer]:

She and my other profs at Carleton College also poo-pooed Hayek's Road to Serfdom. They really needed to read and study more F.A. Hayek,

The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

Related articles

7 F.A Hayek Quotes to Make You Go Full Austrian

If You Are Stopped by the Police

The death of Sandra Bland has left me wondering, "Well what SHOULD I do if the police stop me?"

Fortunately, Time has an answer:

... [H]ere are some things for all of us to consider:

1.You have the right to remain silent. That is true whether you’ve just been temporarily detained or formally arrested. ...

2. You do not have to consent to a search of yourself or your car. ... Keep in mind, however, that if the police have probable cause to search your car, or if you’ve been placed under arrest, they can search you, and sometimes your vehicle, whether you give your consent or not.

3.If you are arrested, you have the right to ask for an attorney and should do so immediately. If you have only been stopped temporarily, you’re not entitled to an attorney at that point. But if you’re being held for an extended period of time, either they’re going to have to let you go or place you under arrest.

4.If you’ve been stopped (but not arrested), you have the right to ask the police whether you’re free to go. If they say yes, you should calmly walk—not run—away from the scene.

5. As difficult as it can be, try to remain calm and be as polite as you can. Even if your rights have been violated, you’re not going to argue your way out of the problem. It’s also always a good idea to make sure the police can see your hands, and that you don’t make sudden movements, interfere with what the police are trying to do, or give false statements. In other words, don’t give the police an excuse to mistreat you or pile on additional charges.

Generally, the best advice is to pay close attention to the situation whenever you are interacting with a police officer. If you’ve had a negative experience, or believe that your constitutional rights have been compromised, you should take note of all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, including the police officer’s name and badge number, and pursue a complaint afterwards.

I doubt if I'd have the wits to think about this, but I would also hope I would remember to set my iPhone voice recorder going.

This Is What Freedom of Religion Should Mean

I love this statement, quoted in part by Steve Horwitz on Facebook with his introductory sentence:

Hey other traditionalist religious groups, this is how you do it in a pluralist liberal democracy (it's also why I'd never be an Orthodox Jew, but...):

"“In response to the decisions announced today by the United States Supreme Court with reference to the issue of legal recognition of same sex marriage, we reiterate the historical position of the Jewish faith, enunciated unequivocally in our Bible, Talmud and Codes, which forbids homosexual relationships and condemns the institutionalization of such relationships as marriages. Our religion is emphatic in defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Our beliefs in this regard are unalterable. At the same time, we note that Judaism teaches respect for others and we condemn discrimination against individuals.

We are grateful that we live in a democratic society, in which all religions are free to express their opinions about social issues and to advocate vigorously for those opinions. The reason we opt to express our viewpoint in a public forum is because we believe that our Divine system of law not only dictates our beliefs and behaviors, but also represents a system of universal morality, and therefore can stake a claim in the national discourse. That morality, expressed in what has broadly been labeled Judeo-Christian ethics, has long had a place in American law and jurisprudence.

We also recognize that no religion has the right to dictate its beliefs to the entire body politic and we do not expect that secular law will always align with our viewpoint. Ultimately, decisions on social policy remain with the democratic process, and today the process has spoken and we accord the process and its result the utmost respect." [EE: emphasis added]

Now let's hope the processes they have given so much respect to give that respect back and allow them to have, in their words "appropriate accommodations and exemptions for institutions and individuals who abide by religious teachings that limit their ability to support same-sex relationships."

I do have some difficulties with the last paragraph, however. If a religious organization had discrimination against blacks or Jews as one of its tenets, on the one hand I would argue the state should dominate; on the other I would favour freedom of association. And that leaves me in a state of limbo. I expect the same might well be true in the case of religions that discriminate against LGBTs, or religious orders that admit only one sex into membership, etc.

Confederate Flags and NASCAR

This is all a very rough impression, but I have long had the impression that NASCAR is dominated by crackers with southern accents, many of whom would be happy to fly a confederate flag. I may be wrong, and I acknowledge this is just an impression.

How many confederate flags used to be sold at NASCAR events? How many will be sold in the future?

And finally, let me ask: What is the racial makeup of people working in NASCAR? I googled the question, but wasn't happy with or informed by any of the links that emerged.

Update: My friend Chris posted this link on Facebook in response to this post. Some relevant snips:

"As our industry works collectively to ensure that all fans are welcome at our races, NASCAR will continue our long-standing policy to disallow the use of the Confederate Flag symbol in any official NASCAR capacity. While NASCAR recognizes that freedom of expression is an inherent right of all citizens, we will continue to strive for an inclusive environment at our events.” ...

This is not the first time NASCAR has stood up in protest of the Confederate Flag in recent years. Bubba Watson, a two-time winner of the U.S. Masters, was set to drive the famous 'Dukes of Hazard' General Lee at Phoenix in early 2012.

But because of the large Confederate Flag on the Dodge Charger's roof, the plans were trashed with NASCAR saying then, "The image of the Confederate flag is not something that should play an official role in our sport as we continue to reach out to new fans and make NASCAR more inclusive."

 And see what Josh wrote in the comments:

Among the top 15 drivers in the NASCAR points standings, there are only two southerners (Dale Earnhardt, Jr. (NC) and Denny Hamlin (born in FL, but grew up in VA)). There is one Cuban-American (Aric Almirola). California - 3 Wisconsin - 2 Michigan - 1 Washington - 1 Connecticut - 1 New Jersey - 1 Missouri - 2 Nevada - 1 North Carolina - 1 Virginia - 1 Florida - 1

David Suzuki Is a Dangerous Man

To all my friends (and others) who worship David Suzuki...

or maybe don't worship him but think he is right on environmental and climate issues...

or maybe think he is sometimes worth listening to:

David Suzuki wants to prosecute those who disagree with him. (see this)

David Suzuki is at it again: Calling for "climate change deniers" and other people who disagree with him -- including Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- to be jailed.

And he has been saying this for a number of years.

So much for freedom of inquiry and freedom of expression.

So much for intellectual challenges with open discussion.

About 25 years ago, I watched Suzuki (a noted geneticist) debate the infamous Phil Rushton (a schlock psychologist) about the relationship between race and I.Q. Suzuki's only point was, essentially, the morally superior attitude of, "How dare you even think about studying this topic?" He certainly contributed nothing to the debate. And he definitely disagreed with the academic process of scientific inquiry.

This man is no scientist. He is a demagogue.

For some of my other thoughts about the David Suzuki empire, see this or this or this.

Giving up Alcohol for 60 Hours or so

I have not had any alcohol since Saturday evening, and I won't have any tonight. Likely I will have been able to go 60+ hours without a drink.

I miss the taste of Ledaig (my current scotch of choice), but I don't feel as if I am going through withdrawal from an addiction. That's why I did this: to see if I could do it, and to make sure I am not getting addicted.

Most of my life I drank very little, but I have begun to wonder if I have been drinking more lately; hence this brief dry period.

When I told Jack about this decision, he sent me this link from WebMD.

You might be dependent on alcohol if you have three or more of the following problems in a year:

1. You cannot quit drinking or control how much you drink.
2. You need to drink more to get the same effect.
3. You have withdrawal symptoms when you stop drinking. These include feeling sick to your stomach, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety.
4. You spend a lot of time drinking and recovering from drinking, or you have given up other activities so you can drink.
5. You have tried to quit drinking or to cut back the amount you drink but haven't been able to.
6. You continue to drink even though it harms your relationships and causes physical problems.

This brief period of abstinence is to reassure myself that 1, 3, and 5, especially don't apply to me. 2 and 4 certainly do not; and I don't think 6 does. Certainly I am not experiencing any of these symptoms.

So far, so good!

Multi-Culturalism: Not for Thee nor for Me

I value freedom more than most other things. And while I guess I'd have no problem with polygamous arrangements between freely consenting adults, it is difficult to believe the parties are freely consenting in situations like this one. Forced marriages, accompanied by or following threats of kidnapping or other reprisals should not be acceptable.

The leader of Russia's southern region of Chechnya has urged men to lock up their wives and ban them from using WhatsApp after outrage over the forced marriage of a 17-year-old girl spread on the messaging service.

Married Chechen police chief Nazhud Guchigov, 47, wed Kheda Goylabiyeva last Saturday after threatening to kidnap the teenager and warning her family of reprisals if they did not agree to the marriage, according to the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta.

Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov, who had earlier backed the marriage in apparent violation of Russian laws against polygamy, used an interview with a local broadcaster to condemn discussion of the wedding on WhatsApp.

"Lock them in, do not let them go out, then they will not post anything," Kadyrov was quoted as saying by the BBC.

"The family honor is the most important thing. Men, do take your women out of WhatsApp."

The Chechen leader said in an Instagram post last week that the girl's parents had agreed to the marriage, and criticized Russian media coverage of "this fuss ordered by some liberals."

Polygamy is illegal in Russia, though it is permitted under Islamic law if both the first wife and any future brides consent, and their husband treats them equally.

 

Women in the Broadcast Booth?

Why are there no women in the broadcast booths for Major League Baseball? There are many who could do the job, and do it better than some of the talking heads that are there now. [See this].

Back when I did radio play-by-play for the AA London Tigers, I worked with many different people as co-announcers. Despite my strongly worded suggestions to the station manager that we find women to co-broadcast in the booth, it never happened.

Women doing play-by-play; women doing commentary and analysis. I see no reason why it shouldn't and won't, eventually, happen.

There are two women whose names come to mind immediately for me.

1. Sherry Nichols. She was one of the stalwarts on rec.sport.baseball 20 years ago. She was a genius and had excellent commentary and analysis day-in and day-out. As I recall, it was she who advanced what came to be known as "The Nichols Law of Catching": any big league catcher who can't hit is then touted by announcers (known as "mediots" to the participants on rec.sport.baseball) as having great defensive skills. Once people began to figure out how to assess catchers' defensive skills, of course, this myth was dismissed. I have never met nor corresponded with Sherry Nichols, and I have no idea whether she would be interested in doing media work. I expect she could do it though.

2. Christina Kahrl. Christina was also a regular on rec.sport.baseball. She and I corresponded a couple of times back then, and we are Facebook friends. I have no doubt she could do the job well. From the website cited above, "Her credentials: Want someone who can tell a good anecdote but also understands sabermetrics? Karhl, a co-founder of the analytical website Baseball Prospectus and an ESPN writer/editor, would be a good catch. She’s also a vocal transgender activist and has spoken about how baseball eased her transition."

Sadly, I'm not sure it will happen anytime soon. For one reason, most viewers/listeners seem disinclined to pay attention to solid numerical analysis. And for another reason, I cannot see most viewers/listeners overcoming the unfortunately deeply ingrained sex biases in sports and sportscasting.

 

Sweden's Foreign Minister Condemns Saudi Record on Human Rights

From the Spectator:

A few weeks ago Margot Wallström, the Swedish foreign minister, denounced the subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia. As the theocratic kingdom prevents women from travelling, conducting official business or marrying without the permission of male guardians, and as girls can be forced into child marriages where they are effectively raped by old men, she was telling no more than the truth. Wallström went on to condemn the Saudi courts for ordering that Raif Badawi receive ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes for setting up a website that championed secularism and free speech. These were ‘mediaeval methods’, she said, and a ‘cruel attempt to silence modern forms of expression’. And once again, who can argue with that?

 

More on Freedom of Speech vs. Freedom of Religion

Ever since I started writing this blog over a decade ago, I have argued that when "freedom of expression" and "freedom of religion" clash, I want us to choose freedom of expression.

I much prefer competition in the marketplace of ideas to stifling the expression of ideas. But, sadly, this competition is being blocked and thwarted by too many people with strong political voices, saying essentially, "If you say that, we will shut you down."

A recent example comes from Trinity University in Dublin [why is it so often universities that try to limit freedom of expression?]:

[T]he cancellation of yesterday's planned lecture on 'Apostasy and the rise of Islamism' by Iranian human rights activist Maryam Namazie is something that should worry us all. ...

There was a telling insight into the mentality of the organisers, the Society for International Affairs (SoFIA) who expressed concerns about their ability to host the event: "In a safe environment where individuals are free to express themselves without fear of being threatened after the discussion."

Just who did they think would cause a disturbance after the event? Namazie's fellow apostates who face an automatic death sentence in 11 countries around the world for seeing sense and leaving their faith?

Or maybe they were worried about how some of Trinity's Muslim students might have reacted? After all, the Trinity Muslim Student Association recently hosted a radical cleric called Sheikh Kamal El Mekki, who was there to explain why apostasy and infidelity are sufficient reason to kill people.

Freedom of expression for me but not for thee? This sounds amazingly unbalanced.

Universities used to be bastions of the defence of freedom of expression. They used to defend mightily their explorations of unpopular ideas. And yet, it appears, many universities nowadays shy away from challenging the extremist Islamists.

It's time for universities to regrow a backbone. It is time for universities to renew their role of encouraging students (and faculty members!) to explore diverse views and to provide a safe, if uncomfortable, environment for these journeys.

Addendum: See this, in which a professor strongly negative views about Hamas and is bullied by students at Connecticut College. It is a lengthy piece, but it looks as if he was targeted not just for that expression but for his other views as well.

Also, see this, which I wrote many years ago about my late friend BenS and his confrontation with the speech police.

 

 

Freedom Week in Montreal in August

I received this information last week. If I were a student, I'd apply for this programme in a flash. The speakers are among the best in the field.  Just hearing Munger, Jaworski, and Horwitz [the three with whom I am familiar] will be an experience you won't forget!

What a terrific opportunity!

  On August 10-15 the Institute for Liberal Studies will be hosting our second annual Freedom Week seminar in Montreal. This five-day seminar is designed for students who are interested in learning about classical liberal ideas and the foundation of a free society and is open to undergraduate and graduate students, as well as those who have recently graduated. A faculty of six professors with backgrounds in economics, political science, philosophy, and law will deliver lectures and lead discussion groups designed to give students a chance to talk over important ideas with their peers.

This seminar is totally free, and room and board will be provided. Participants will be selected through a competitive application process and all applications must be submitted by April 15. All students who apply by March 15 will receive a free book.

Faculty for this the seminar:

• Jacob Levy (Political Science, McGill University)
• Michael Munger (Economics and Political Science, Duke University)
• Peter Jaworski (Philosophy, Georgetown University)
• Moin Yahya (Law, University of Alberta)
• Diana Thomas (Economics, Creighton University)
• Steven Horwitz (Economics, St. Lawrence University)

  Applications can be submitted online at www.liberalstudies.ca/freedom-week.

 

Birthdays of People I Barely Know Appearing in my Google Calendar

Over the past month or so, I've seen some birthdays of contacts and Facebook friends, but people I really don't know all that well, showing up in my Google Calendar. I see no reason for those birthdays to appear there. In fact, I have no idea how they got there, and so I clicked on them to try to remove them.

Nope. Can't do it.

And here [via Kip Esquire] is an explanation.

At the time of writing Google’s spokeswoman is “checking” on whether there is any way at all to unsubscribe from Birthdays, and says she’ll get back “as soon as possible”. So if there is a very elusive option to re-unsubscribe I’ll be sure to update this post and add it in....

Whether that option re-materializes or not one thing here is amply clear: Google does not want you to unsubscribe from information it determines should be universally available. That is not part of its mission. It is, in fact, the polar opposite of its mission. Hence making unsubscribing such a wild goose chase. So the theme of reducing user control and increasing algorithmic enforcement is not going to go away anytime soon.

On the contrary, as more and more information piles online — via connected devices and the like — expect more levers of human control to be quietly disappeared or disabled because the algorithmic entities conducting this increasingly pervasive digital symphony really prefer if you just sit there and lap everything up. It makes the big data so much more quantifiable if you do. In short: eyeballs, know thy place!

Still, it’s worth us humans remembering that other calendars are available. Which is one short-term way to route around this sort of TFBS.

Cartoonists React: Je Suis Charlie

Numerous cartoonists have reacted to Islamic terrorist murder of the staff at a French publication that wrote satire, criticizing Islamic extremists. Many are summarized in the Washington Post.

My favourite captures the essence of the attacks on "Freedom of Expression".

Je Suis Charlie

From this site (ht Rondi)

The assailants are as yet at liberty. I hope they’ll be dead by the time you read this. But if not:. You want me too? Come get me. Because nothing short of killing me — and many more of my kind — will ever shut us up.

And if you don’t believe that now, you’ll believe it very soon. Because there are more of us willing to die for that freedom than those of you eager to take it from us. And soon you will find out that those of us willing to die for that freedom are also much better at killing than you.

So come and get me. Je suis Charlie.

The Importance of Freedom of Expression

Since I began blogging nearly a decade ago, I have argued that freedom of expression must take precedence when it conflicts with freedom of (or from) religion. Perhaps it is because I'm an academic; perhaps it is because I am mostly non-religious. But whenever I see any religious group try to stifle expression, including satire of their religion or their leader, I am upset and concerned.

The latest incident involves murders of at least 12 people in France because of  cartoons like this and the proposed issue making fun of sharia law:

"100 lashes if you don't die of laughter" is what some people say is the proper translation.

From the CBC site:

Hooded gunmen shot dead at least 12 people at the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical publication firebombed in the past after publishing images lampooning Muslim leaders, in the worst militant attack on French soil in recent decades.

Another 20 people were injured, including five critically, in the incident. Police union official Rocco Contento described the scene inside the offices as "carnage."

 

I Am a Skeptic. Does That Make Me a Criminal?

Science is advanced when people are skeptical of received doctrines and "settled science". Advancing both knowledge and our understanding requires an open mind and a willingness to question the mainstream. And yet, throughout the ages, skeptics have been persecuted by religious and political leaders.

You would think humans could learn from this history. But no, assuming these remarks were not taken out of context [via Jack].

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., says he wants a law to punish politicians who dissent from man-made climate change theory - and calls them "contemptible human beings."

Kennedy made the remarks in an interview with Climate Depot at a climate march in New York on Sunday:

Kennedy Jr. accused skeptical politicians of "selling out the public trust." "Those guys are doing the Koch Brothers bidding and are against all the evidence of the rational mind, saying global warming does not exit. They are contemptible human beings. I wish there were a law you could punish them with. I don't think there is a law that you can punish those politicians under."

Kennedy also said he thinks the successful pro-energy Koch brothers should be "in jail...with all the other war criminals":

"I think it's treason. Do I think the Koch Brothers are treasonous, yes I do," Kennedy explained.

"They are enjoying making themselves billionaires by impoverishing the rest of us. Do I think they should be in jail, I think they should be enjoying three hots and a cot at the Hague with all the other war criminals," Kennedy declared.

And, Kennedy's not the only climate activist who would like to see dissenters jailed.

As the Media Research Center's Business and Media Institute (BMI) chronicled in a May 2014 analysis, pro-climate change theory media and scientists have long promoted the idea of throwing anyone who disagrees with them in jail - even to the point of calling for "climate Nuremberg" trials.

So much for constitutional freedoms of speech, press, and expression. So much for competition in the marketplace of ideas.

Even if it turns out that I am incorrect to be skeptical (I'm skeptical with good reason, for now, I think. See this, this, and this.), I hope the fundamental constitutional freedoms will not be abridged in this or any other debates or discussions concerning science and public policy.

Addendum: also see this by Bjorn Lomborg

Related articles

On Global Warming: Unlike Judith Curry, I'm a 3-4, Up From a 1-2

Can 73 Climate-Change Models ALL Be Wrong?

Climate Skeptics 'Should Be in Hague'...

Five Myths of Feminism

This article in Time lists five myths of feminism [via Gabriel]. They comprise important misstatements about facts and misuses of statistics concerning what are typically referred to as women's issues.

The article does not pooh-pooh women's issues. Instead, it urges people to examine the facts and to have a better understanding of statistics.

Why do these reckless claims have so much appeal and staying power? For one thing, there is a lot of statistical illiteracy among journalists, feminist academics and political leaders. There is also an admirable human tendency to be protective of women—stories of female exploitation are readily believed, and vocal skeptics risk appearing indifferent to women’s suffering. Finally, armies of advocates depend on “killer stats” to galvanize their cause. But killer stats obliterate distinctions between more and less serious problems and send scarce resources in the wrong directions. They also promote bigotry. The idea that American men are annually enslaving more than 100,000 girls, sending millions of women to emergency rooms, sustaining a rape culture and cheating women out of their rightful salary creates rancor in true believers and disdain in those who would otherwise be sympathetic allies.

To read about the myths and the criticisms of them, read the entire piece.

Sexist Memes on Facebook?

There are many FB memes talking about how wonderful mothers, grandmothers, aunts, and sisters are. Despite my apparent addiction to FB, I have yet to see any of these things talking about how wonderful dads, grandfathers, uncles, and brothers are. I always want to post comments, correcting or adding to them, but that would become both tiresome and tiring.

Am I missing the ones mentioning males? Or is there some other explanation?

Questions for Journalists in the Middle East

MA sent me this link (also here) of 40 questions to ask journalists reporting on Gaza/Hamas. Here are a few:

18.   Russia Today journalist Harry Fear mentioned rocket-launching sites near his hotel. Have you noticed any terrorists or terror bases near your hotel?

19.   How do you feel about Fear’s expulsion from Gaza, for tweeting about the rocket launches from civilian areas? Are you worried that you might also be expelled from Gaza?

20.   Did you see any Hamas terror personnel inside Al-Shifa hospital?

21.   Have you interviewed a Hamas spokesperson inside Al-Shifa?

24.   Hamas’ command and control bunker is underneath Al Shifa hospital. Is this worth reporting? Have you asked to gain access to it, so you can interview Hamas commanders?

25.  French newspaper Liberation reported that Hamas’ Al Qassam offices are next to the emergency room at Shifa hospital, before deleting the article. Was the reporter right to delete the article, and will the information appear in the media at some point still?

26.   When the missile hit Al-Shati hospital where children were killed, did you see Hamas operatives collecting the debris of the fallen Palestinian rocket, as Gabriel Barbati reported? Did Barbati pick up on something you missed?

27.   Barbati prefaced his tweet by writing “Out of Gaza, far from Hamas retaliation.” Will you also report differently about Gaza when you are out of Gaza, far from Hamas retaliation?

28.   Can live journalism by reporters who are scared of retaliation from the authorities they are reporting about really count as pure journalism, or is journalism in that context fundamentally compromised?

37.   When Hamas breaks a ceasefire with Israel – as it has done 6 times – how easy is it to report on this from Gaza?

38.   Is there any anti-Hamas sentiment in Gaza, and how is it expressed?

39.   Were you aware that Hamas chose to execute dozens of anti-war protesters in Gaza, and did you not consider this to be worth reporting?

40.   Is international media reporting from Gaza free from pressure and intimidation, or is there a real problem – and if so, how will you address it?

Let me add to this list: now ask the same questions of journalists reporting from Israel about the Israel-Hamas war.

My bet about the results: there is one heck of a lot more freedom of the press and one heck of a lot less intimidation in Israel than there is in Gaza.

And, if that is the case, it should raise questions about the news reports about the war, especially those filed from Gaza.

 

Racial Segregation and Integration: then and now

In the very early 1950s our family was on a trip through the south. At one point, to cool off, we stopped at a municipal swimming pool in Memphis, Tennessee. I was too young to catch on right away since I had been raised in the north and had no idea what segregation was, but my parents immediately saw that the pool was segregated.

The segregation there greatly amused my parents for its silliness: there was a rope down the middle of the pool. Whites swam and played on one side, blacks swam and played on the other. My parents rightly pointed out to my sister and me how silly it was because the water circulated throughout the entire pool and we all ended up swimming in the same water. It was as if the water didn't matter but the potential for contact did.

I was reminded of this incident last weekend when I met Pat Thomas at a community pool where my son lives south of Houston. He was telling us that when he was young, he grew up in Plano, Texas, which also had segregation. Only in Plano the pools were for only white people; his dad had to drive him 18 miles each way into Dallas for him to go to a pool where he could learn to swim. That was in the early 1960s, when civil rights and desegregation were (finally) becoming such important issues in the United States.

The community pool last weekend was a model of integration: whites, asians, blacks, Mexicans, east Indians, and all sorts of combinations of the various colours and races. For all I knew there were some arabs and jews there, too.

We've come a long way in 50 years.

Thank goodness.

Go Read This Post

It is by a libertarian woman I have never met and with whom I have never corresponded. It describes the fear she felt in several different relationships. Here is the link: The Post I Don't Want to Make. [via Steve Horowitz].

Don't post comments about how she invited the behaviour or how she should have extricated herself from the relationships sooner. Not even as a joke. I'll delete them here, and I'll pare down my Facebook friend list.

And for more, read this [via Kaitlyn Rietdijk]. These two articles (and others posted recently) may help promote more empathy and understanding. I sure hope so.

A Plug for Salim Mansur

Salim Mansur is a long-time friend and colleague who is running for the Ontario Provincial Parliament in the June 12 provincial election. He is running for the Freedom Party. Salim is a pro-west Suni Muslim who has suffered considerable criticism from fellow muslims because of his views on the West, on Israel, and concerning human rights and freedoms. From his campaign website,

Salim is a Distinguished Senior Fellow with the Gatestone Institute in New York, a member of the Board of Directors for the Center for Islamic Pluralism based in Washington, D.C., and a founding member of Toronto-based Council of Muslims Facing Tomorrow. He has also served as an academic consultant with the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). ...

As someone who has experienced the chilling absence of individual rights and freedom in society widely prevalent across many parts of the world, he has devoted much of his writing and public speaking in defence of free speech, individual rights and respect for the dignity of the individual that are the building blocks of liberal democracy.

The Honor Diaries

My friend Salim Mansur is part of a group of friends who are hosting/sponsoring a showing of a documentary,  Honor Diaries, on Friday, May 29th at the Wolf Performance Hall, 6:30 - 8:30pm. He has written to me,

The showing of this documentary about the status of women in the Arab-Muslim world -- the misogyny, the persecution and abuse of women -- has brought the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) related Islamist organizations to mount their offensive to stop public showing of this documentary....

 

They succeeded in forcing the University of Michigan and the University of Illinois to withdraw the screening of the documentary. At Brandeis University these organizations forced the university administration to dis-invite Ayaan Hirsi Ali and withdraw the presentation of an honorary degree that had already been publicly announced. ...

 

It will be shown at the Wolf Performance Hall, London Public Library, 251 Dundas Street, London, Ontario.  

 

The date and time are: Thursday, May 29, 2014, 6:30-8:30 pm. 

Please come out and see this documentary, and support the struggle against honour-killings, female genital mutilation, child marriage, and women sold into slavery, as we now witness the horror of kidnapping of young girls in Nigeria by Boko Haram and their being sold into slavery.

 

At least one of the women in the documentary, Raheel Raza, will be among us. ... Raheel has very bravely agreed to engage in a Q & A following the showing of the documentary with the audience members.

 

It cannot be emphasized how important this documentary is in bringing to the North American public the awful reality of gender exclusion and gender oppression in the Arab-Muslim world, and equally important to screen it in public despite the opposition and the equally awful silence of the mainstream media on the subject and the effort mounted to prevent public screening of "Honor Diaries."

 Quite frankly, I would love to hear the feedback about this film from all the people in Regina who gave Salim such a hard time while he was there a few years ago.

Related articles

Brandeis University Defends Those Who Favour Total Subjugation of Women

CAIR Legal Jihad Against Gaubatz Family

Honor Diaries extended clip about Muslim violence against females (Video)

Dear Brandeis University: Invite me to be your commencement speaker

Brandeis students will screen Islam critic's film