The headline says the issue is “complicated.” But I don’t think it is.
Prof. Jim Flynn, “now in his mid-80s,” seems like a 1960s lefty. At the time, he believed in freedom of speech and academic freedom. He believed in the principle that robust debate leads to the truth.
Half a century or more later, his views have stayed the same. But the left has reversed its positions. It no longer believes in freedom of speech or academic freedom. Those have been replaced with freedom to take offense and freedom to accuse others of “privilege” and freedom of children or young adults to try to shout down their professors. Today’s left also believes in stifling debate because it already knows the truth. (What could go wrong?)
Now the good “self-described democratic socialist” professor may want nationalized medicine and nationalized housing and nationalized food production, for all I know. So I doubt we’d agree on much. But what we do agree on is pretty important. I’d like to have a drink with him.
The headline says the issue is “complicated.” But I don’t think it is.
Prof. Jim Flynn, “now in his mid-80s,” seems like a 1960s lefty. At the time, he believed in freedom of speech and academic freedom. He believed in the principle that robust debate leads to the truth.
Half a century or more later, his views have stayed the same. But the left has reversed its positions. It no longer believes in freedom of speech or academic freedom. Those have been replaced with freedom to take offense and freedom to accuse others of “privilege” and freedom of children or young adults to try to shout down their professors. Today’s left also believes in stifling debate because it already knows the truth. (What could go wrong?)
Now the good “self-described democratic socialist” professor may want nationalized medicine and nationalized housing and nationalized food production, for all I know. So I doubt we’d agree on much. But what we do agree on is pretty important. I’d like to have a drink with him.