Moral Health

To some people the very idea that men might be in need of a support-group is none other than an oxymoron. For on this view, it is something akin to a law of the universe that men cannot be the victims of injustice, that they cannot be unfairly criticized, that their sense of worth cannot be unduly threatened, and so on. From the fact that men have been sexist, what is supposed to follow somehow is that women and only women can be wronged.

First of all, even we allow for the sake of argument that all men have been sexist, what is surely false is that all men have been equally sexist. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, from the fact that women have been the victims of sexism what simply does not follow by any stretch of the imagination is that women have not committed, and cannot commit, egregious moral wrongs against either women or men.

In other words, being a victim of systemic wrongdoing does not thereby entail that one is a morally righteous individual. Quite the contrary, being a victim of wrongdoing is compatible with being quite malicious.

In the city of Chicago, for example, we know that of late some of the most vicious crimes against minorities—minority children, in fact—have been committed by other minority individuals. No account of racism will explain, let alone justify, such behavior on the part of any minority person.

In custody battles, women have falsely and—need I add—viciously accused the man whom they are divorcing of sexually abusing their children. No account of sexism will justify such bile-filled accusations on the part of any woman.

The University of Chicago group Men In Power can be seen as none other than a response to the reality that injustices against men are common enough. The group need not be understood, as some radical feminists might suppose, as an attempt to return to an era when, as the saying goes, women were “kept barefoot and pregnant”. Rather, the impulse by the group can simply be that the equality of women should not be at the expense of the equality of men.

This line of thought is not as implausible as one might initially suppose.

One very untoward consequence of both feminism and diversity is the sentiment that any criticism of a woman by a man or of a minority by a white is somehow motivated by sexism or racism, respectively. So prevalent is this line of thought that the substance of a person’s criticisms have very nearly becomes irrelevant.

For instance, a white professor has to contend with the charge of racism if she or he should correct a minority student’s grammar. Or a male professor has to contend with the charge of sexism because a female student became uncomfortable with the way in which he discussed rape. Never mind that he roundly and unquestionably condemned rape. It is just that she somehow felt uncomfortable with the way he approached the subject.

Indeed, the criticism that a female student made of me is that I did not give sufficient warning that I was doing to talk about date-rape—not that I had say anything inappropriate, but that I did not give sufficient warning that I would be addressing the issue. That charge might have had at least the ring of plausibility to it were I teaching a mathematics class. Precisely what I teach, however, is a class that discusses contemporary moral problems. The right question from a student would be all that it would take to address the issue of date-rape.

As for date-rape itself: Everyone knows that it is normally through non-verbal cues that sex takes place between a woman and a man—and not via some contract as Antioch College had once supposed. Yet, we all know that there are men who have found themselves charged with date-rape when they had every reason to think that they had engaged in perfectly consensual sex. It is, to be sure, true that the woman in question did not verbally agree to have sex with the man in question. But as I have just noted: Verbal agreements are simply not a typical part of the moment if only because that discussion characteristically gets in the way of the moment. Young women have made that charge to protect their familial standing after a night of slutty behavior. And yes: I deliberately used that word. Yet as we all know, the mere charge of date-rape tends to be damaging even if in the end the charge deemed to be without warrant.

Here is a most poignant observation: A female can truthfully claim that she felt as if she were raped when in point of fact what happened does not amount to rape at all. A woman can say “He took advantage of me when I was drunk”, although the man had every reason to think that they were getting drunk together and, besides, she was all over him.

No sensible person can deny that there is sexism. Alas, that truth does not preclude the despicable truth that, notwithstanding sexism, women can do quite malicious things.

If the group Men In Power is none other than a response to this reality, then its existence already has considerable merit.

At the risk of sounding utterly naïve, whatever equality means, it does not mean that one replaces one evil with another evil. Nor, again, does it mean that if men once unfairly passed over women, then it is morally permissible or even required for women to pass unfairly over men. So once again: if Men In Power is taking a stand against this nonsense, then it is doing something absolutely appropriate.

Now, in some of the comments to the Chicago Tribune article about the group, some individuals accused members of the group of being insecure. Well, let me ask: Since when has pursuing justice on one’s behalf a sign of insecurity? The charge of insecurity only makes sense if one supposes that the very existence of sexism precludes the reality of anyone wrongdoing against men. And that assumption has always been false; and it is more false now than ever before. This is so—not because the world is perfect for women. Rather, it is so because all sorts of allegations by women are taken seriously nowadays, however implausible, whereas such allegations were not taken seriously in the past. One does not have to trivialize the reality of date-rape in order to recognize the truth that there are teenage females who use that charge to their advantage. A like point holds for racism.

Finally, there are matters worth discussing among men that have nothing to do with women. One of these is the following: How should we understand masculinity in a world that is accepting of homosexuality? After all, just as gays can be offended when their homosexuality is not accepted by straight men, it is also true that straight men can be offended when their heterosexuality is not accepted by gay men. The increase in social categories requires increasingly greater precision regarding what the boundaries are. Far from being narcissistic or bemoaning losses, such discussions by men are very pertinent to moral and social progress.

To conclude, then: The issue is not whether the members of Men In Power are flawless in their moral character. There is no organization whose members meet that requirement. Nor, again, is the issue whether men generally are flawless in their moral character. For there is no group of people, however they might define themselves, who meet that morally elevated condition. It suffices that there are substantive moral issues that affect men as such, and which it would be useful for men to wrestle with collectively. If this is right, then the charge that Men In Power bespeaks an insecurity on the part of men the group is none other than a sign of moral depravity on the part of those who make it.

In this world, a group of men or whites claiming, respectively, to address the wrongs of men or whites is readily and unthinkingly seen as a form of consciousness-raising in an unjust society. At the very least, the formation of the group Men In Power can be seen as an act of marvelous moral courage; for these men are daring to speak for themselves in a moral and social climate in which few, if any, are inclined to speak on their behalf and a social climate in which far too many think that men have no right at all to speak for themselves. If my memory serves me correctly, there is a term for this line of thought: oppressive.

© Laurence Thomas 2009

For a copy of this essay in PDF format, click here

Zero-Tolerance in schools is a classic example of an idea that appears to be wonderful in theory but which proves to be utterly horrendous in practice.  The idea is marvelously simple: No wrong-doing and no fighting will be tolerated.  Explanations, however applicable, are deemed entirely irrelevant.  So if Opidopo pushes me down several times and I defend myself by punching Opidopo, then I am just as wrong for defending myself by punching Opidopo as Opidopo is for pushing me.  Zero-tolerance makes it entirely irrelevant that the only way I was going to get Opidopo to stop pushing me was by punching him. 

The above example marvelously points to why zero-tolerance appears wonderful in theory but is horrendous in practice: the policy favors bad students.  Here is why. 

Precisely what bad students do not care about is getting in trouble.  The last thing that deters them is the thought that they will be sent to the principal’s office and given some form of suspension.  For that very reason, the policy is not a deterrent to bad students at all.  Quite the contrary, zero-tolerance provides bad students with a quite shrewd way of being malicious; for the bad can pick on good students until these good students have no choice but to defend themselves if they (the good students) are to avoid being further harmed. 

This, surely, is an unintended consequence of the idea of zero-tolerance.  No one had such a thing in mind.  Yet, it does not take genius to see that in practice the policy has precisely this effect, which raises the very poignant question: Why do schools continue to insist upon it?

The answer is very troubling: The zero-tolerance policy effectively absolves school officials of any responsibility with regard to having to determine who initiated a wrongdoing and who defended himself or herself against that wrongdoing.  Thus, the policy is less about protecting students and more about protecting officials from having to make substantive judgments.  No doubt what motivates this stance is the desire to avoid litigation by having to make assessments; and the penchant for litigation is, in turn, no doubt motivated by the warped view that parental love means defending one’s child at all costs. 

In any case, it turns out that one horrendous consequence of this zero-tolerance stance is that the innocent suffer.  And it is not possible for any remotely thoughtful person to miss this truth.  Why?  Because the right to self-defense is held to be one of the most fundamental moral and political principles of society.  So something has gone terribly wrong when in effect schools are denying students the basic right of self-defense. 

Akin to the right of self-defense is non-negligible ignorance regarding a matter.  For all my talk about crack and cheerios (which are supposed to lower cholesterol), whilst having fun in the lecture hall with 400 students, the fact of the matter is that (to my knowledge) I have never seen crack first-hand.  There is absolutely nothing about my life that would have me encountering crack.  Moreover, if profiles are any indication, I am as certain as one can be that none of my friends use the stuff.  Yet, none of this prevents someone who dislikes me from claiming that I have crack in my backpack or my computer bag.  And if that should ever happen, and my bag was searched and no crack is found, I should hope given the life that I live that there is simply no need to search my home for the stuff. 

This brings me to the case of Savana Redding: As a 13-year old honor student she was stripped searched in order to determine whether she had ibuprofen pills.  Not crack; but ibuprofen.  These are simple pills used to ease pain.

The problem was not that she had acted in any way inappropriate or had done anything that warranted anyone suspecting that she had ibuprofen pills.  Rather, it is that one of her classmates who had been found with such pills blamed Redding.  The move, I suppose, was to make Redding the person who distributed them.  Given Redding’s character, this move would be rather like someone claiming that I had crack in my computer bag.

At any rate, Redding’s backpack was examined and no ibuprofen was found.  Rather than stop there, the school proceeded to subject Savana Redding to a strip search.  And, of course, no drugs were found.  Needless to say, it is subjecting Redding to a strip search that stands as an utterly indefensible and morally obnoxious move.  School administrators of the Safford Unified School District in Safford (Arizona) claim they have to be able to protect the entire student body from individuals who may bring drugs or guns to school. 

But what this cannot possibly mean is that school officials are entitled to strip search students for any prohibited object given the slightest whim or rumor.  Strip searching a student who is rumored to have a gun is one thing.  Strip searching a student who is rumored to have basic pain-reliever pills which are prohibited in the school is quite another.  In either case, there is the issue of character on the part of each individual: the one making the charge and the one to be stripped searched. 

The Supreme Court of the United States is going to review the matter.  According to CNN.Com, what is at issue is “whether a campus setting gives school administrators greater discretion to control students suspected of illegal activity than police are allowed in cases involving adults in general public spaces”

But notice the language here: “suspected of illegal activity”.  What on earth counts as being suspected of illegal activity?  Surely not any wild rumor counts in this regard.  So it is even if the Supreme Court rules that schools have greater discretion than do police.  For if any wild rumor counts, then this would entail that any student who is angry at another student could have that student subjected to a strip search merely by making a wild claim about the student. 

In that case, notice once again that we have a policy that favors students who are inclined to act maliciously. 

The officials of the Safford Unified School District would like to make context and character absolutely irrelevant.  Alas, there is simply no way to do that and still treat human beings as human beings.  Thus, what the Safford Unified School District claiming is that they have the right to be indifferent to the very humanity of their students; and this point gets us back to Ms. Redding.

What made stripping searching her so ludicrous is just the fact that she had been such an upright student and the only basis for even supposing that she—Redding—might have had ibuprofen is that a student who was in fact found with ibuprofen accused Redding of having it.  This accusation perhaps made it remotely plausible to search Redding’s backpack.  Subjecting Redding to a strip search, however, was simply beyond the pale. 

For one thing, there was nothing about Redding’s character that warranted moving beyond her backpack.  For another, given that the charge was made spontaneously by a fellow student, the supposition that Redding might have had ibuprofen hidden on her person presupposes a kind of pre-meditation on Savana Redding’s part that has absolutely no basis in reality, given both her character and the context in which the charge was made.  Why, it looks for all the world as if the school took more seriously the accusation made by the person who was found in possession of ibuprofen than it did the person, namely Redding, the who had been a model student. 

Strip searching a person is an extreme measure; and as such it requires that there be some measure of imminent danger.  And the case for that cannot be made with ibuprofen.  Accordingly, what the Safford School did amounts to none other than the cruel treatment of a human being.  After all, in the absence of imminent danger, the choice was not to strip search Redding or do nothing at all.  School officials could have easily chosen to have kept Redding in the principal’s office and called her parents; and a strip search could have been done with the them present.   

One of the great ironies of the present direction in American society is that in the name of protecting human beings and, in particular, young children we are resorting to measures that in point of fact undermine rather than affirm the humanity of individuals.  Make context and character entirely irrelevant in the learning setting and one automatically makes learning less meaningful than it should be.  What is gained in terms of efficiency is lost in terms of the affirmation of humanity. 

© Laurence Thomas 2009

Barack Obama’s worse enemy is not the KKK or some neo-Nazi group.  It is not even radical Islam.  No, Obama’s worse enemy turns out to be none other than black Americans themselves.  Why?  Because racial pride and loyalty has resulted in American blacks having a kind of puppet like—and thus uncritical—acceptance of just about anything that President Obama might say.  This in effect makes blacks a liability for Obama rather than an asset.

I am prepared to give a nod to ethnic pride and loyalty.  There is no doubt a place for these things.  Alas, what is also true is that ethnic pride and loyalty can be taken too far.  They are taken too far when they preclude the possibility of constructive criticism.  Or, to put the point another way, ethnic pride and loyalty have been taken too far when any criticism, no matter how constructive, marks the person as a traitor.  Insofar as the sentiment among blacks is that a black individual is less black if that person takes issue with Obama’s views, then blacks are none other than an enormous liability to Obama. 

The idea, of course, is not that blacks should be looking to find every flaw and weakness that President Obama might have.  Rather, the idea is that blacks, no more and no less than any other ethnic group, should serve as a constructive sounding board for Obama, and this they cannot do if like so many puppets on a string blacks simply nod their heads in approval to whatever Obama says. 

The point here has nothing whatsoever to do with the intellect ability of Obama.  It is far too obvious that he a man of considerable intelligence.  However, no one is so intelligent that there is no room at all for constructive criticism and challenges.  Accordingly, it is most unfortunate for Obama if all that matters to black Americans is none other than the fact that Obma is black.  Indeed, there is a very poignant sense in which they betray him. 

Barack Obama is not America’s pastor or the pastor of black folks.  He is not a pastor at all.  Rather, he is the President of the United States.  The point here is that the uncritical acceptance of what a pastor says is one thing; whereas the uncritical acceptance of what a president says is quite another; and it is entirely out of order.  Blacks do not owe Obama an uncritical acceptance of what he says.  Obama, of course, has made no such claim.  Alas, this does not negate the fact that a great many blacks hold just this view.  So we have what is surely the irony of ironies here: Contrary to what blacks undoubtedly suppose, their uncritical acceptance of Obama, far from contributing the greatness of his presidency, is an enormous liability to the Obama presidency. 

The preceding point holds all the more so if Obama uses as a political tool the uncritical acceptance of his views by blacks.  For in that case, we get something even more perilous.

Bishop Mandell Creighton is observed that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  The uncritical acceptance by blacks of whatever Obama says could in effect contribute to his very own corruption precisely because too many whites are afraid to criticism him for fear of seeming racist in their own minds or being accused of racism by blacks. 

Students who protested President Obama’s speaking at Notre Dame, given his views on abortion, were said by some politicians to be disrespectful of the first “African-American president”. 

What a shameful thing to say about the students.  The students in question at Notre Dame were protesting the man’s views on abortion.  The color of his skin was entirely irrelevant. 

Needless to say, this example speaks to my very concern precisely because it is so unequivocally ludicrous.  And I ask what exactly is one supposed to do out of respect for the fact that Obama is the first “African-American president”?  Genuflect?  Lie prostrate so that he can walk upon one’s back? 

And guess what?  There are many black people who—dare I say it—are opposed.  In fact, it has been said that abortion is none other than a form of genocide against black people.  A Google search under “abortion as genocide against blacks” will reveal just that. 

Now, if I understand things correctly, the blackness of these individuals is not called into question just so long as they do not express their disapproval of Obama’s views on abortion.  So, there you have it: Just when you thought that the premise of this blog-entry was totally ludicrous, the opening line of argument suddenly has an air of plausibility to it. 

For many, the idea is that blacks are black first and then Americans.  This is wrong.  This is because everyone is a human being first and everything else comes second.  Accordingly, if black loyalty is invoked to deter blacks from fully participating in the public debate about social and political issues, then black loyalty effectively diminishes the humanity of blacks by undermining their citizenship. 

Now, you will notice that Obama has not so much as even gestured towards the reality that many blacks find abortion unacceptable.  The point here is not that blacks more so than Latinos or Asians or Native Americans or whomever deserve special mention.  Rather, there is the issue of Obama using the “supportive silence” of blacks as political muscle to press his agenda. And if this is right, then guess what we have?  Not a white person manipulating black people in order to advance her or his ends, but a black person doing so.  And this Obama could not do but for the servile silence on the part of blacks in the name of being supportive of Obama. 

Far from inspiring active citizenship on the part of blacks, the blanket and unreflective support on the part of blacks for Obama constitutes none other than servility masquerading as black pride and loyalty. 

Even the most optimistic of Jews might feel a little troubled by the news of late.  On the one hand, we learn that neo-Nazi groups are on the rise in Germany.  On the other, we learn that four black Muslims in New York City were plotting to blow up two synagogues in the Bronx.  The only good news is that the mother of Ilan Halimi, the young French Jew who was tortured by several Muslims in France, succeeded in getting the magazine called Choc to take off the stands an issue containing the horrendous pictures of the torture.  But of course that good news sits on the horrific mountain of antisemitism that was perpetrated against an innocent Jew.  (Added at 21:35: We learn later today of a neo-Nazi plot in Brazil to blow up synagogues.)

I am reminded here of the searching words of Alice Walker in her book The Color Purple.  Walker reminds us that in order to understand a person, we must listen not only to what a person does say but also to what the individual does not say.  And if one should listen to what people are not saying about matters pertaining to antisemitism, I fear that one is forced to conclude that the acceptability of antisemitism is on the rise.

With regard to the four blacks Muslims in New York who were plotting to blow up two synagogues, I do not here an outcry on the part of the black community against the antisemitism on the part of these four.  Not a peep out of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.  And of course I hear nothing from white liberals in the United States who are far more interested in not being seen as racist than standing up for what is right. 

Why, the four could have raped several elderly Jewish women, and all sorts of liberals would have endeavored to excuse such a bastardly deed by talking about the pain of being raised in a racist world. 

It is interesting, though, that the pain of racism never seems to be an impediment to blacks seeing the slightest racial offense. 

As for the rise of neo-Nazi groups in Germany, we are told that German authorities are troubled by this.  Needless to say, the authorities are not the only individuals who should be troubled.  The entire German people should be deeply disturbed.  Indeed, Europe in general should be troubled.  Unfortunately, there is also deafening silence in this regard.

Now, I understand that these are hard times financially. People throughout the world are struggling to make ends meet.  In struggling with their own major financial problems, people are under enough stress. 

Yet, we must never lose of the fact that evil is opportunistic, and that it is emboldened by silence. 

In the United States, it is no accident that antisemitism is on the rise among black Americans; for blacks leaders no longer criticize blacks for egregious antisemitic remarks or deeds.  Not a word from Obama who certainly has no trouble expressing himself.

As for Germany, there is the possibility that far too many Germans have become morally lethargic in holding the belief that “another Nazi Germany could not happen again”.  Alas, we must remember that no one ever supposed that the first Nazi Germany could ever happen. 

During difficult times, we must be all the more diligent precisely because people are so much more vulnerable and, for that reason, they can be so much more easily manipulated.

It would be remiss of me not to say a word about Muslims generally.  I hold the very simple principle that anyone who kills an innocent person should be publicly and loudly denounced.  To be sure, I am aware as anyone that who counts as innocent can be a matter of heated debate.  But we do and can have clarity about the matter.  My Muslim Arabic neighbor in France is innocent.  The Muslim Arabic students whom I have taught are innocent.  I cannot even begin to imagine these individuals committing jihad. 

Alas, the 4 black Muslims plotting to blow up two synagogues in Bronx NY: They are not innocent.  And every Muslim in the world has irrefutable reason to be absolutely clear about that.  And thus I ask: Where is the public outcry on the part of Muslims who are so terribly interested in and committed to peace?  Why I do not hear so much as a whisper from the Muslim community.  What would it take?  Black Muslims bombing a mosque? 

As I have said, there are surely debatable cases.  But just as there are unquestionably debatable classes, there are also cases that are absolutely beyond debate in terms of not being innocent.  And if the 4 black Muslims plotting to blow up synagogues in the Bronx do not a case of evil behavior on the part of Muslims, then nothing does. 

Needless to say, I would think the very same thing of 4 Jews plotting to blow up a Mosque in the Bronx or in Paris. 

While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may require that we exercise a measure of circumspection, it does not require that we be silent no matter what. 

And make no mistake about it: Those who take refuge in the shelter of silence are doing nothing other than simply constructing bit-by-bit a sanctuary for evil. 

There are those who think that we should not judge others.  I do not share that view.  When people’s lives are at mistake or the well-being of their family is at stake, then they have a very good reason to be silent.  However, for a great many people no such thing holds true.  It does not hold for me.  I can and shall speak up whenever I have incontrovertible clarity with regard to wrongdoing. 

It is ever so appropriate to end with the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller’s:

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

For a printed copy, click here

Obviously, it is wrong to promote hate. But what counts as promoting hate? And it is the answer to that question that, in broad strokes, sharply marks the difference between liberals and conservatives. For liberals, there is a vanishingly thin line between being critical, on the one hand, and being hostile in an untoward manner and thus promoting hate, on the other. In particular, liberals tend not to think that criticism is a way of engendering excellence. Encouragement, liberals insist, is the route to excellence.

Conservatives, by contrast, tend to think that substantive criticism is not only justified but also that often enough criticism is absolutely necessary in order to attain excellence. While hardly opposed to encouragement, conservatives maintain that encouragement shorn of criticism can be very hypocritical, and so not a way of taking another seriously.

When applied to ethnic groups: Liberals tend to maintain that any criticism of members of an ethnic group is racist; whereas conservatives tend to hold that criticisms of members of an ethnic group can be ever so appropriate. Whatever else is true, liberals are simply wrong. It is ludicrous to hold that merely criticizing a member of an ethnic group makes one racist. If a Latino kills an Asian in cold blood while attempting to rob the Asian, then that Latino is open to severe moral criticism for his behavior.

And even if we concede that racism is the explanation for why the members of various ethnic groups have not achieved various excellences, what does not follow from this at all is that the members of these groups cannot be criticized for failing to have higher aspirations and to take certain courses of action. Suppose, for example, that in the attempt to rob me you knock me unconscious and then drag me in the middle of a highway. Upon regaining conscious, I just lie there waiting for someone to help me, although I am fully capable of getting myself to the side of the road, where I would be much safer. I was a fool for just lying there; and you would be ever so right to point that out to me.

In a word: The reality of racism does not negate the truth that there are things which victims of racism can and should do for themselves.

Now, while the view that I have attributed to Michael Savage may be false, it cannot be properly characterized as racist. Notice that the view does not say, or entail, that minorities are incapable of achieving the highest level of intellectual and moral excellences. It assumes no form of genetic inferiority on the part of minorities. I have never heard him come even close to positing genetic inferiority on the part of this or that ethnic group.

It is, alas, a conceptual truth that a group cannot in anyway be deemed inferior merely on account of being accused morally irresponsible. After all, the very charge of racism itself entails that individuals are not acting morally responsibly without entailing that those so charged, typically individuals who are white, are inferior in any way at all.

Michael Savage could be mistaken in his view that various members of ethnic groups are not acting as responsibly as they should. Alas, a mistaken view is not thereby a racist view. For instance, if it turns out that affirmative action has done more harm than good to blacks, then many who believe in affirmative action will be mistaken in their view of the good of the practice. Yet, it would be just absurd to accuse these supporters of being racist simply on account of the supporters being mistaken about the good of affirmative action.

Mr. Savage is against affirmative action. This no more makes him racist than being for affirmative action makes one honest and upright.

The moral of the story is this: While the difference between hate speech and critical speech may at times be difficult to ascertain, the distinction is one of fundamental importance; hence, it is a mistake to regard all critical speech as hate speech. This is especially wrong when we do so merely because doing so is convenient or suits our political aims.

There can be little doubt that Michael Savage’s view fall under the rubric of critical speech. However, the argument that his views constitute racist speech is untenable and without merit unless one mistakenly and wrongly conflates critical speech with racist speech. This I say not because I am in general agreement with what Savage says, but because the distinction between racist speech and critical speech is an extremely important distinction that liberal democracy must not ignore and because his many claims—bombastic though they might be—do not meet the criteria for being labeled racist.

These considerations bring me to the topic of free speech. Whatever else is true, the very idea of free speech can make no sense at all—indeed, the idea is politically bankrupt—if the only speech that is permitted is the speech which expresses views with which we concur. Liberal democracy will flounder if it does not take this truth seriously.

What is more, liberal democracy cultivates none other than irresponsibility if it allows that the mere charge of racism warrants preventing a person from speaking. For there is no evidence at all that victims of racism are more saintly or righteous than others; accordingly, there is simply nothing about being a victim of racism that precludes the possibility of misusing the charge of racism. Worse, still, liberal democracy itself becomes oppressive if it allows that the mere charge of racism warrants preventing a person from speaking.

It is thus rather disconcerting that liberals have remained so very quite given the recent events that have unfolded around Michael Savage: He has been barred from entering the United Kingdom on the grounds that he promotes racism. When one considers the list of individuals who have been barred on these grounds, it simply makes no sense at all to suppose that Savage is in the same category as these individuals.

Of course, liberals in the United States do not determine the policies of the United Kingdom. This truth, though, is no bar to liberals going on record as supporting Savage’s right to critical speech (which, as has been noted, does not thereby constitute racist free speech). The silence of liberals would suggest that they take delight in the symbolic significance of Savage being barred from the United Kingdom: He should be silenced in the United States, if only he could be.

If this is what liberals think, and there is little reason to imagine that they think otherwise, then the political trajectory of the United States is a most disconcerting one. There is a right and wrong way to ensure liberty for all. Silencing criticisms of ethnic groups, by insisting that all such criticism is tantamount to racism in spirit if not in word is none other than a Pyrrhic victory. For if we tolerate and support silencing others merely in order to suit our political ends, then in the very famous and haunting words of Pastor Martin Niemöller’s: There will be no one left to speak on our behalf when it is determined that we, too, should be silenced.

Over and over and over again, history has shown that silencing others for the greater good of all never ever results in the realization of that outcome, namely the greater good of all.

© Laurence Thomas 2009

For a printed version of this essay click: Here

A Young woman has a fatal accident; and now pictures of that accident all over the internet.  The person in who died is Nikki Catsouras; and the question that forcibly presents itself is the following: What end is served by these pictures?  The death is a misfortune, and a terrible lost to her Nikki’s parents and family.  But that does not begin to explain why the pictures of the accident can be found all over the internet. 

It is not even remotely plausible that some profound moral lesson is being taught by the posting of pictures of the accident.  For instance, an actual website has been set up to host pictures and video of the horrific accident.  I will not mention the name of the website.  However, the following is a jpeg image of the site’s homepage.  I have deliberately decreased the size of the image and marked over it.

The site was not set up by her Nikki Catsouras’s parents.  Quite the contrary, her parents are horrified that pictures of their daughter’s death are proliferating all over the internet. 

The proliferation of these pictures is a case of unseemly voyeurism if ever there were one.

Now, an argument that is being invoked over and over again is “The right to know”.  The invocation of this right turns the acquisition of knowledge into some sort of perversion—a fetishism, if you will. 

Worse still, when this right is relentlessly applied it is actually incoherent.  Suppose that the accident had occurred and her parents had been able to clean up all the debris after the proper authorities were finished.  Consequently, given this supposition, only the authorities and the parents have any pictures of the accident. 

Let us agree that the public has a right to know that there was an accident.  What exactly does it mean, however, to claim that the public has a right to see the pictures of the accident?  Is it any picture pertaining to the accident?  Or is it only certain kinds of pictures pertaining so the accident; and if so, then what kind of pictures?  Or, is it that it does not matter what kind of picture that one has of the accident, just so long as one has a picture of it.

As far as I can tell, the so-call right to know seem to apply to the third option: it does not matter what the picture is a picture.  Alas, this reduces the right to know to none other than morbid curiosity. 

The very idea of a right to know applies to information that can be presumed to be useful.  The picture of a toe nail of the body is surely not useful.  Although a picture of the decapitated head tells us that the accident was horrendous, it does not tell us anything that is indeed useful.  After all, an accident can be absolutely horrendous even though a decapitation did not occur.  Indeed, if as a result of an accident a body burns to the point that nothing is left but mere ashes, we have something pretty horrendous indeed, although no decapitation has occurred. 

Useful information is one thing; morbid curiosity is quite another.  The right to know has become synonymous with morbid curiosity; and thus understood, the right to know is both utterly indefensible and incoherent. 

If one person has a right to something, then it follows that another is obligation to provide the thing in question.  And it is utterly absurd to suppose—incomprehensible to maintain— that anyone has a right to satisfy the mere morbid curiosity of another. 

It was reported on the news that the name “Nikki Catsouras” has of late been the one of the Googled names on the internet.  Indeed, the story that was reported was about this fact and none other.  The gruesome pictures are what people have been interested in seeing.  And that fact is a very sad commentary on the American society. 

The internet is wonderful in so very many ways.  Alas, what is also very painfully true is that the internet has become an opportunity for individuals to indulge their most morbid fantasies.  No doubt we all have them upon occasion.  Perhaps that is even human.  Indulging them, however, is another matter entirely.  Once upon time, we generally were ashamed to do so.  The internet has provided us with a cloak of privacy and with that cloak so many of us have lost a sense of shame.  That does not portend well for the future.

Reactions to the Heritage Christian School beautifully illustrate the problem with America today.  All sorts of people think that the rules of the school are downright silly.  And they may be right.  The problem, alas, is that this is the school that Tyler Frost chose to attend.  This is the school whose rules Tyler Frost indicated that he accepted by signing a document to that effect.  This is the school who warned him that attending the prom would have consequences. 

Given this backdrop, I find it stupefying that anyone should think that the problem here lies with the rules of the school and, moreover, the willingness of the school to impose consequences for violating them.  The proof of this comes from a rather unsuspecting quarter, name sororities and fraternities on college campuses.  Sororities and fraternities typically have rather unusual pledging activities for those who want to join them.  I can easily see how a student may find the pledging activities disgusting.  But guess what?  No student has to pledge a fraternity or sorority. 

As silly and as archaic as anyone may think that Heritage Christian School’s views are about dancing and so forth, the simple fact of the matter is that the rules are not immoral and, what is more, Tyler did not have to attend Heritage Christian School.

Thus, it is ludicrous to suppose that Frost has grounds for complaint.  And it is even more ludicrous that Frost’s stepfather should think that some form of legal action is appropriate here.  And if any court should rule in favor of Frost, the court’s doing so will set a horrendous legal precedent. 

Part of what it means to live in a free society is that persons have the right to join or to refrain from joining organizations.  Needless to say, one very good reason for not joining (or ending one’s membership with) an organization is none other than that one does not like the rules of that organization (or one stopped liking its rules).  There is a fancy legal term for this sort of thing.  It is called: exercising one’s freedom of choice. 

Whether or not I agree with the rules of the Heritage Christian School, the fact of the matter is that the school is unambiguously clear about the fact that dancing on the part of its members is not permitted. 

Now some have argued that the school has no jurisdiction over what a person does away from the school.  Accordingly, Frost’s dancing on non-school property is not something for which the school can rightly penalize him.  Well, we should be clear about what the school is doing.  It is not making any claims about the legality of dancing.  Rather, the school has a criterion for membership; and criteria of that sort can be both wide-ranging and arbitrary.  Here is rather arbitrary one: The Magna Français School only accepts students whose parents have a net worth of $1 million at the time of their child’s enrollment.  There is no correlation whatsoever between intellectual ability or good moral character and having that amount of net worth about this requirement. 

Now, I am rather certain that if there were a Magna Français School few, there would be precious few who would complain about it.  Quite the contrary, I am sure that all sorts of people would characterize the school as elite. 

Well, the Heritage Christian School is none other than a religiously elite high school.  It is not for the religiously or morally faint of heart.  It is not for those who have deep religious “commitment” only on days of worship or only when they are in a certain milieu.  Neither you nor I may want to attend such a religiously elite institution.  However, it is sheer hypocrisy to ridicule the school for insisting that those who attend that school unfailingly adhere to the religious rules of the school, when those rules are made unequivocally clear from the start—indeed, each student must sign a document indicating that she or he understands and accepts the rules.

Moreover, it is a rejection of the very idea of individual responsibility to maintain that Tyler Frost had a right to ignore the rules of Heritage High because he found the rules are silly and no one should be held to rules deemed silly even if the individual signed up for them. 

It is characteristic of the hypocrisy of the liberal media to want to criticize the Heritage Christian School, although we can find also sorts of utterly foolish behavior in Hollywood about which the liberal media has very little that is critical to say.  This is disgusting. 

Tyler Frost and his girlfriend were invited to New York to do a TV interview.  Make no mistake about it.  The issue was not “Why is it, Mr. Frost, that you were not man enough to live up to the commitment that you voluntarily signed up for?”  The worry was not about his betrayal of that to which he voluntarily committed himself.  The focus was about how hurt he has been and how wrong it was for the Heritage Christian School to feel that it could imposed its values upon “such a nice young man” even when he is not on the school’s premises.  Then we wonder what happened to responsibility on the part of the young.  The answer is simple enough: Responsibility does not make for good news; whereas irresponsibility does.

Let me conclude by reminding the reader that I do not for a moment share the views about dancing that the Heritage Christian School holds.  One does not need to share the school’s views about dancing in order to see that the school is absolutely right in expecting Frost to live up to his commitment to abide by those rules.  Frost gets to finish high school and so obtain his diploma.  The suspension simply made it impossible to participate in the graduation ceremonies. 

Once more: Frost’s stepfather is a morally bankrupt individual if thinks that legal recourse is warranted.  And if any court should dare rule in Frost’s favor, then it is time for another American Revolution. 

Duplicity is not new.  Throughout history, there have been individuals who been duplicitous, in that they have effectively lived a double-life.  What is new, however, is just how easy it has become to live a double-life thanks the internet.  In the past, doing so effectively meant living in two different locations, where through interaction with two entirely different sets of people one effectively forged two unrelated identities. 

Nowadays, however, creating a different identity is effectively as simple as the click of a mouse.  A person can go on Second Life, for example, and create an entirely new identity.  Philip Markoff stands as an embodiment of this reality.  He was a medical student who was living a double-life—as task facilitated, in this instance, by Craigslist.

There was a time when it was very difficult to satisfy morally bankrupt desires except by leading a double life in a different location.  Nowadays, it is extremely easy to satisfy morally bankrupt desires simply joining a website such as Craigslist or Second Life.  This raises an important question about the reasonableness of the victim’s behavior.

The issue is not about blaming the victim for being murdered; for nothing whatsoever justifies her being murdered by someone.  But in view of the obvious truth that, alas, anyone on-line can be anyone, including a tremendously bad person, then it is very disconcerting that anyone would put herself or himself in a very precarious situation by agreeing to meet a perfect stranger in an entirely isolated setting.  Now more than ever, commonsense loudly counsels against doing such thing. 

As a guy, I would not agree to meet a man who is a complete stranger to me in an entirely isolated setting.  It would not matter what the occasion: to exchange one item for another; to share some important piece of information about a third party; or what have you. 

Of course, nothing is full-proof.  And there is no way to live a meaningful life without take some risks.  Still, there are reasonable precautions.  And this holds now more than ever, precisely because one thing we surely know is that the internet lends itself to abuse by morally bankrupt people.  The internet is extremely fertile soil for duplicity, as anyone who signs up for a site such as Craigslist or Second Life just has to know. 

So although we should not blame the victim, what is true nonetheless is that her behavior bespoke enormous imprudence on her part. 

Turning now to Megan McAllister, the question that readily arises is the following: What are the limits of love and loyalty? 

To be sure, a person can be too eager to see a person as having done wrong; hence, the person comes across as looking for faults in the other.  This, obviously, is unacceptable. 

McAllister, though, seems to be erring in the other direction.  The preponderance of evidence suggests that Markoff has a very unsavory moral character.  I mean he was not caught “watching a porno flick”.  People might find this behavior unsatisfactory.  Yet, it must be acknowledged that occasionally watching a porno flick is what many an otherwise decent man does.  If only the evidence suggested that Markoff were “guilty” of doing no more than that! 

Unless Markoff is simply being framed—and there is no reason at all to think so—the preponderance of evidence makes it abundantly clear that he is not the kind of man that any woman should want to marry. 

It is, of course, perfectly possible that Megan McAllister is in a state of shock; for the man with whom she had been living and whom she had been planning to marry in August of 2009 has turned out to be quite a horrible person; and this all has unfolded rather like an unexpected tidal wave. 

What strikes me as most interesting is that McAllister conveys no sense of disappointment and anger over the fact that man whom she loves is even remotely associated such abominable behavior.  Even if Markoff had not killed anyone and even if it is true that Markoff did not kill anyone, there are the other unsavory aspects of his life that remain—more than enough for a fiancée to be very upset and disappointed.

Megan McAllister claims that Philip Markoff would not hurt a fly.  That truth, alas, is perfectly compatible with Markoff doing lots of things that call into question his moral character.  A person who has a gambling habit may not harm a fly; yet, the person is open to serious criticism for having a gambling habit.  Likewise, a man who frequents prostitutes may not harm a fly, either.  After all, prostitution is often referred to as the victimless crime.  Just so, a man who is given to seeking out prostitutes surely does not make for a good husband.

There is every reason to think that Markoff has masterfully betrayed McAllister.  Notice that she has not at all indicated that Markoff claims to be innocent.

Together, these considerations would suggest that McAllister’s loyalty to Markoff is way over the top, as we say—far exceeding the loyalty that love demands of us.  It is one thing to hope for the best.  It is quite another to stare evil in the face and claim that “It is good”.  Love is about the former and not the latter. 

Indeed, love at its best is not indifferent to the behavior of a beloved.  Quite the contrary, love at its best leaves us mightily susceptible to anger and hurt when we have been betrayed.  In a word, love at its best has built in limits.  And this truth tells us something rather revealing, namely that so often what passes for love is not that at all, but some form of narcissistic obsession.