GMU’s leadership in classical liberal, conservative, and libertarian perspectives draws many to the university. It is a reason that students from all over the country and the world come to GMU. I should think that the university would wish to build on that leadership and proven excellence.
Perhaps the policies you are planning are not intended to reduce dissent from leftism. But policies are being created, with an apparatus dedicated to enforcing them—an apparatus over which no single person has control. One can imagine how, either out of zealousness or from just wanting to feel relevant, dissent would be greeted. Dissident teaching, course material, and speakers might be encroached upon; policies or technicalities might be used to reduce effectiveness of dissident scholars and teachers; dissidents might be pressed into early retirement; dissident units might be unable to hire and promote as they think best.
Read the whole essay in order to get the background. My sense is that George Mason’s libertarians have already felt the chill in the air under the new university leadership.
“My sense is that George Mason’s libertarians have already felt the chill in the air under the new university leadership.”
It would be helpful to understand the possible chills that they are feeling. What precisely conflicts with libertarian theory and DEI?
Will the libertarians be able to articulate their opinions (or even publish certain academic research) without fear of reprisal?
Suppose that a professor performs some research and concludes that there is little evidence of discrimination per se driving this or that racial disparity in outcomes. Would it be wise for him to publish it at woke GMU? Probably not.
What precisely conflicts with libertarian theory and DEI?
How about, “What *doesn’t* conflict with the essence of what drives DEI, that differs from DEI or any other Wokester doctrine by so much as a scintilla?
There is a giant amount of flexibility in how you interpret DEI or Diversity and Inclusion. Some interpretations are absolutely compatible with libertarianism. The political left that dominates universities would disagree with most libertarians on almost everything except immigration. This is controversial, but sincerely self-identified libertarians are split on immigration. Libertarians who disagree on immigration are really not allowed to publicly advocate for that and have been driven out of public discussion. Those at CATO + Reason are fanatical about open borders immigration and they are allowed to speak and advocate publicly.
On issues like health care, free markets, the welfare state, the scope of government, libertarians and left-wing DEI types are pretty fanatically opposed to each other.
It’s degeneracy bro.
Are you pro or anti degeneracy? A certain kind of libertarian got so in love with the idea that government defining what was degenerate has issues that they became pro degeneracy. Now they are surprise when the degenerates they allied with want to twist the entire world into an ugliness, but they are too autistic to extricate themselves.
Now that the greedy little tax-eating proprietors of Marginal Revolution have decided to fatten at the Facebook trough by enlisting as corporals on the “Crush Substack” front in Zuckerberg’s War on Free Speech, it is hard to care. A majority of GMU faculty are ardent Never Trumpers who sucked up to the notoriously corrupt Terry McAuliffe and have been implacable foes of voter integrity and human rights on the internet. Serves them right. Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Free speech is not a cause anyone fights for. Basing anti-wokeness on it is a lost cause.
Is it just me or do the losertarians seem completely tone deaf?
It’s possibly the most resilient principle in American politics. There’s probably no conservative plank the violation of which would energize people as much as speech laws.
There seems to be a concerted effort in these comments to build a brand of conservatism rooted in hatred of freedom.
You’re right, freedom of speech has never been very popular. That’s why it’s so important to defend it.
And a thumbs-up to Mark Z for this: “There seems to be a concerted effort in these comments to build a brand of conservatism rooted in hatred of freedom.”
The number of wins conservatives have had on free speech is approximately zero.
If you want to oppose DEI, oppose it because it’s simply WRONG. It should not be taught or pushed because it’s WRONG. Arnold links to a Rufo interview where he quite rightly notes that this “just win in the marketplace of ideas” argument stuff is nonsense, because it’s not a marketplace and the dice are loaded. If you’re up against a totalitarian ideology you don’t start talking about the merits of free speech, you oppose it on the merits.
“I’m going to give these crazy extremist control over the microphone, but then ask that they give me a tiny little corner of society where I can have ‘free speech’ as they reshape everything in their image” is just a losing argument.
I pretty much agree with what you say here, but I also believe that free speech IS important — and all the “cancel culture” stuff is a great threat to free speech.
Diversity and Inclusion is Orwellian doublespeak for Conformity and Exclusion. That’s quite funny, actually.
https://www.econlib.org/the-uniformity-and-exclusion-movement/
9/11 : conservatism
Covid-19 : libertarianism
In hindsight, both sides seem like silly fools for having not stood firmly on the side of civil rights and liberal values.
(Still waiting for the official Cato position on virus policy…)
The immigrants that Bryan loves vote for the politicians that support and enforce the movement he claims to hate….oops.
Immigrants do vote left. Bryan knows. One counter point is the current incarnation of the political left is mostly a creation of native born white leftists.
I am persuaded by many of Bryan Caplan’s points. I also sympathize with immigration restrictionists. It’s a big and complicated issue.
way too little, way too late. enjoy the collapse, hopefully something better emerges.
Immigration is not too complicated.
In a market capitalist economy of private economic actors only engaging in win-win peacefully agreed to activities, there should be open immigration.
Limited immigration is required in a society which will tax the successful, give welfare to those who choose bad life decisions and thus have bad life outcomes.
This was Uncle (to Libbers in the 80s) Milton Friedman’s position and remains true.
Before supporting open immigration, we must eliminate coerced collection of tax money by the gov’t for use in subsidizing lifestyle mistakes.
Yes, Libbers are against such gov’t subsidies. Until they’re successful in eliminating them, no “rich” economy can afford open immigration – and none have it. I think America remains among the leaders in absolute numbers of legal immigrants it allows, which doesn’t even count the millions of illegal aliens which continue to come in.
I’d even call most of them grabby aliens, since their acceptance of welfare is so high, but Robin Hanson talks about different types of grabby aliens in his cool but most likely irrelevant paper. Like all too many of those unrealistic Libertarian ideals.
We need a culture to support personal responsibility – which means the individual pays for their own mistakes. Most like this, in theory, but would prefer an exception in the (all too frequent) cases when it’s their mistake which must be paid for. Like AIG & Goldman Sacs in 2008, among so many others.
To understand what university presidents do – appreciate that they largely compete against other university presidents in the eyes of each other.