If I were asked in a quiz to come up with a single word to capture the dynamics of the story, I would say “reaction.” Admittedly, I’m not the first to notice that the pendulum swings over time. Philosophers like Hegel and Foucault, with their “dialectic” of history, got there a long time ago. Many others also have less opacity, such as journalist Susan Faludi, author of the iconic book Backlash – the clue is in the name – about the regressive response against women in the 1990s to the feminist gains of the 1970s and 1980s (this Rowe v. Wade is now in danger is the last really grim reminder of what happens when women go too far).
In the modern era, the dynamics of the backlash also characterize the sensitivity of generations. Thus, if the leading spirit of the 1950s was rigidity and repression, the 1960s and 1970s saw an explosion in experimentation and loosening. It is puzzling, however, that the dynamics of the generational response seem to have stopped abruptly. Given that we all live in a world reshaped by millennia (and academics) obsessed with restricting free speech, one might think that those who come along the lines of the next – Generation Z – would like to go the other way and rebel against the Jacobin excesses of their elders.
It’s sobering and really chilling to see a different phenomenon play out. Gen-Z seems even more authoritarian, even less so for freedom of speech, and even more passionate about police thought than millennials. Last week, a study by the Institute for Higher Education Policy, an independent think tank, found horrific changes in students’ attitudes in 2022 compared to 2016.
A confusing 79% of students believe that “students who feel threatened should always respect their safety requirements”, compared to 68% in 2016. Safety, of course, does not mean physical safety, it means discomfort, caused by “micro-aggression”, including the slightest glances or facial expressions. The amount of thought needed to observe everything should be significant, but for today’s students it can never be too much.
There was then a disgusting jump from 37 percent to 61 percent for those who believe that “when in doubt,” their university “must ensure that all students are protected from discrimination, rather than allowing unrestricted freedom of speech.” Indeed, students in 2022 would make Stalin proud, so they want to control who can say what. A much larger number believe that non-left political groups should be blocked from speaking on campus – including 11 percent who believe that conservatives should be banned. More students than ever want universities to consult with “special interest groups” (gender associations and LGBTQ; Muslim groups and other BAME groups) before allowing invited speakers to talk about topics that may offend them, and more to support protests and the “destruction” of events from ever before. The huge 40% want student unions to simply ban all speakers who insult students, compared to 16% in 2016.
Like the good Stalinist infantry, they are also very keen on compulsory re-education programs: more than half (55 percent) want employees to undergo “training” for other cultures so as not to offend, compared to 16 percent in 2016. Meanwhile, teachers who commit the indescribable crime of “teaching[ing] material that strongly offends some students ”(for example, the history of most things, including empire; all canonical Western literature) should be fired, according to a third of students.
This is a terribly sinister thing, with dire consequences for the future of knowledge, learning and freedom. The government has done little to curb violations of free speech in education, and some repulsions have occurred in the universities themselves; for example, after the outrage, Cambridge changed its mind-boggling anti-learning rule about the need to “respect” all opinions by changing the word to “tolerate.” But nothing seems to be working: both teachers and students seem devilishly inclined to destroy everything that is great in Western freedom, and they are also getting away with it. Just last week, it was announced that the OCR examination board was removing Philip Larkin and Wilfried Owen from their GCSE to be more “diverse”: it was a brazen filleting of ideologically aroused reading lists designed to produce more and more indoctrinated students.
One has to wonder why all this is happening and I am inclined, I am afraid, to blame Gen X, the parents of these authoritarians on campus. Gen-X tried to adapt to the sins of his selfish fathers and mothers, becoming obsessed with every blink of his child, the possibility of any micro-need, the potential for fractions of a second of discomfort. In this context, is it any wonder that they have developed a phobia of things considered “dangerous” just when the likelihood of physical insecurity has dropped to its lowest level ever?
Given that Gen-Z shows puritanical tendencies everywhere – drinking less, giving up meat, not smoking, obsessed with the environment – this is more than what happens on campus. These attitudes lead nowhere and the madness will not recede naturally. This is not a “phase”.
Given how real and deep the rot is, we must actively fight it. Universities that cooperate with students in aggressively restricting freedom of speech (for example, those that discipline staff to teach “offensive” material) should be funded. But students must fight, as they are beginning to do in America, with bold groups against waking up on campus. New free speech schools and universities must be set up that are good enough to attract pupils and students. The first university of its kind, the University of Austin, launched its first course last week in Texas. We need much more, and fast.
Add Comment