Civil discourse in America has become a Shakespeare play.  The debate on almost every issue plays out in the same five acts associated with any of the bard’s tragedies or comedies.

• Act I/Introduction of the players.
• Act II/Emergence of the issue or situation.
• Act III/Climax or moment of illumination when the outcome is determined.
• Act IV/Response to the climax.
• Act V/Resolution or catastrophe.

Take, for example, the current debate over freedom of expression on college campuses.  In Act I we learned there were faculty, students and speakers on college campuses who claimed their First Amendment right to freedom of expression had been violated based on things they had said or written.  In Act II,  academic freedom of expression becomes the cause celebre of the University of Chicago, which in 2014, establishes a committee on freedom of expression and develops what becomes known as the “Chicago Principles.”  In Act III, the movement is institutionalized when the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education {FIRE)) begins promoting the Chicago Principles and establishes a rating system to measure an institution’s compliance.  Concurrently, Econ Journal Watch makes the connection between the free speech movement and a study they published that looked at the voter registration of 7,243 professors at 40 major universities which found (drum roll) Democrats outnumbers Republicans 11.5 to one.

Which brings us to Act IV, the response taking place in the Florida State Legislature where  the Republican majority recently passed HB 233 with stated objective “to protect the intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity on state campuses.”  However, according to the Tampa Bay Times ,” the act would require public colleges and universities to survey students, faculty and staff about their beliefs and viewpoints.”  On April 6, the Florida Senate passed its version of HB 233 on a partisan vote of 23-15, WITHOUT DEBATE.  (So much for freedom of expression.)  The Senate version includes vague language which allows the State Board of Education (appointed by the governor) to determine if any response is required based on the survey results.  Opponents of the bill contend the vague language opens the door for curriculum mandates at state colleges and universities.

I am afraid we have to wait for Act V to see how this cliffhanger unfolds.  Will HB 233 lead to academic McCarthyism?  The bill also allows students to make audio and/or video recording of class sessions which can be used as evidence in cases involving alleged violations of a student’s freedom of expression.  Or is HB 233 just one more instance of GOP political theater to deflect attention from efforts to further restrict voting rights or the state’s response to the pandemic?  Or is the whole freedom of academic expression movement  the solution to a problem blown out of proportion.  In 2018, the Georgetown University Free Speech Project issued a report in which it found “roughly  90 incidents since 2016 in which a person’s free speech rights were threatened, of which two-thirds of the cases took place on college campuses.” (Source: First Amendment Watch at New York University, August 2018)

In other words, will the eventual chronicle of this  clash of viewpoints over the intersection of government and academia be titled “All’s Well That Ends Well” or “A Midsummer’s Nightmare?”

POSTCRIPT: Some Culture Should Be Cancelled

On last night’s edition of Real Time with Bill Maher, the host again accused liberals of being overly “woke,” pointing to a recent incident where Meyers Leonard, an NBA basketball player, was released by the Oklahoma City Thunder for using a racial slur.  Oddly, Mr. Politically Incorrect, who often accuses others of being snowflakes, was not willing to share Leonard’s word.  I think my readers can handle it.

During a live-streamed session of the video game Call of Duty, Leonard referred to another player as “a fucking kike bitch.”  To his credit, Leonard quickly apologized for his behavior but claimed he had no idea what the word “kike” meant.  As a result, the Anti-Defamation League and others suggested he talk with members of the Jewish community including Holocaust survivors about the origins and history of the term, which he did.

Maher, however, found this offensive.  He thought the original apology should have been enough.  He then reminded his audience his mother was a non-practicing Jew and asked, “Doesn’t that give me enough cred to speak for my people?”  I think you know the answer!

Maybe an individual who, in the 21st century, believes education is an inappropriate response to ignorance is someone who SHOULD be cancelled.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP