There are times
when I ponder the means by which Walter Williams lives with himself. Professor Williams
is an economist, self-styled “classical liberal, libertarian” who is a chair holding
professor of economics at George Mason University. He has degrees from UCLA and
USC and is a well-known published author on economics. Oh, and he’s African
American, but, like the loathsome Michelle Malkin, an “anchor baby” herself, he
has either forgotten his roots, sold his soul to the devil, or more likely,
realized that writing a syndicated column pays well. At 82 years of age, he has
lived through many the struggles of his racial group here in America.
With that
background, one might assume that the good professor might be somewhat attuned
to racial issues which still, in many instances continue to serve to divide some
of us from the others. That said, Dr. Williams
is a constant apologist for those of the right who abuse and incite. In an earlier
blog post (actually several years ago), I discussed the phenomenon of successful
black businessmen and other professionals who seem more likely to distance themselves
from their roots than to lift others. Williams is one such man. This isn’t
simply a racial “thing,” as many (most) whites behave in similar fashion.
Oddly, as a group, the one group of Americans of wealth and position who do
give back on a large scale are those much maligned “liberals” who have pledged
to give away most of their riches. This concept dates to Andrew Carnegie’s
credo that “He who dies rich, dies disgraced.”
Of course, the current
political head of state frequently maligns these men and women such as
Blumberg, Allen, Buffett, the Gateses, Bezos, the Zuckerbergs, and others,
since he apparently has no inner compass which orients to good deeds or even
simple empathy related to others. But I digress; back to Walter Williams.
In a recent
op-ed piece entitled “Fruits of College Indoctrination Take Shape in Hate
Speech,” Williams flirts with some valid points and then, as he so often does,
simply goes off the rails and into the ditch. This particular effort details
the lamentable efforts of some individuals to verbally confront, in public settings,
some public figures (Sarah Huckabee Sanders was among the first) whose public
actions and opinions they find objectionable. So far, not too bad, as most of us would agree
that regardless of political issues we can and should be civil to one another, especially
in a public setting such as a restaurant or other venue. He also uses, as an exemplar,
Mitch McConnell and his spouse being verbally harassed at Reagan National airport
and Senator Ted Cruz at Georgetown U.
He then takes
the extraordinary leap of illogic of blaming these incidents on the inculcation
of ultra-liberalism in the nation’s colleges and Universities. So, right off
the top, let’s acknowledge that there are those in Academia who are of a more
socially liberal bent than perhaps, the auto mechanic in Iowa or the camo-wearing
Louisiana duck call manufacturer. (If that surprises or offends you, should stop
reading now.) There are any number of possible explanations for that, but the one
which rises to the top of the list is simple. A major part of an advanced curriculum
in almost any area except theology, is the honing and application of critical
thinking concepts. These are those same skills whose inclusion in school
curricula have given rise to so much opposition in some more conservative
states, such as the aforementioned Louisiana, because critical thinking is essentially
antithetical to teaching actions and obedience based solely on belief, not
reality and/or reason.
On aspect of
applied critical thinking is that it sometimes falls athwart such environmentally
inculcated concepts as racism, economic inequity and general class prejudice. A
good example of the effects of such institutional misanthropy, unrelated to the
USA, but instructive, is the parade of, in some cases, completely and fatally incompetent
British military leaders who were in command solely due to position and the
assumption of class superiority. Under the system which was in use from the
Norman invasion to the late 1800s, birth, not capability was a (the) major
factor in appointment to command. Wallace, The Bruce, and Cromwell all proved
how mistaken this concept can be. Others, commoners like Francis Drake, proved
that talent can rise if allowed to.
Yeah, I know,
so how does this relate to Walter Williams? Be patient grasshopper. A large
portion of the op-ed describes what may well be an overreaction to
institutional conservatism in some schools which has manifested in what is, in
some cases, a pendulum swing in the other direction. This is exemplified by such
things as “bias response teams” on some campuses. These report (report, mind
you, just report) “speech that might cause ‘alarm, anger or fear’ to campus
police.” That’s it. Report. Wow, scary, huh? Dr. Williams takes this information from a
group calling itself The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Any
bets which “side of the aisle” funds and runs this group?
Let me be clear
about my own opinion here. I think there are fringe areas in both sides of
political thought which garner more attention than their actual numbers of adherents
merit. Some are very liberal, some are ultra-conservative. The difference in
many cases, however, is that those on the far right tend to be repressive,
which includes abridging or denigrating the rights of others while those of the
far left tend to be more permissive. The reproductive rights debate offers a
clear portrait of those differences. Even the most rabid pro-choice individual would
never even think or state that anyone who differs in opinion should be forced
to have an abortion. Of course, the obverse of that coin is that essentially
all “pro-life” persons would deny anyone that procedure.
There, now that
we’ve gotten that out of the way. Let’s deal with Dr. Williams’ “hate speech”
allegation. His major point, which is valid as far as it goes, is that hate
speech is constitutionally protected. Yep, it is. So, however, is the right of
its victims to respond, sans violence, to its usage. His complaint, which is
peripheral and awesome in its over simplicity and lack of coherence, is that,
the “victims” he points out, (Huckabee- Sanders, McConnell, Ted Cruz, are
innocent targets. While, as I stated, my take on common decency mitigates
against confronting any of these in public, they are unavailable, by choice,
and position, to the public in any other setting and far from “innocent.”
Huckabee-Sanders
lies for a living and walks out of the briefing room. McConnell, who has the
audacity to plead for “bi-partisanship”, since the 2018 House majority reversal,
also said in 2008, 'the most important thing we can do is to make sure he (Obama)
does not succeed,” and essentially ordered his Republican cohort to vote “No”
on everything Obama. Williams apparently also forgot the cry of “Liar” directed
by a congressman at Obama during his first state of the union address. All
these people, including Cruz (shut down the government?), have use their bully
pulpits, unreachable by us common folk, to spew what, while perhaps not hate
speech, is offensive to the core for many Americans.
Now to specifics
re: Williams. Are we to assume that his apparent espousal of hate speech is ok?
He speaks from both sides of his mouth, depending on the wind direction. He decries
students who demonstrate against a speaker on campus with whose politics they
disagree as the evil product of liberalism, yet he was strangely mute regarding
the Charlottesville demonstrators, armed in some cases, white supremacists
though they be, who ran a car into a crowd just 30 miles southeast of his own
campus. One wonders what Dr. Williams felt watching fire hoses and dogs being used
against Dr. King and peaceful demonstrators chanting what, by any definition,
was protected speech? Did he uphold the constitutional sanctity of the hateful taunts
of the white crowds urging the police on to greater violence? Was he “ok” with
the symbolic and actual hate speech culminating in beatings of freedom riders
and incinerating their buses? Has he at 82, forgotten his own struggles in
segregated schools in Philadelphia in the early1950s?
So, summing up,
Dr. Walter Williams is in favor of the constitutional protection of hate speech
if it’s conservative, even accompanied by violence, but not by non-violent students
on liberal campuses! That said, God forbid anyone should have negative reactions
to the constant stream of proven untruths and borderline bias from conservative
talking heads and legislators.
The difference here
is that all these public reactions to these conservative icons aren’t based on stereotypical, bias related, concepts such as race, religion, physical limitation, or
nationality, all of which Trump has insulted at one time or another. They are
reactions to bad behavior and inciteful speech by these public figures in
public places. While I wouldn’t choose to do what some of these activists have
done, as a matter of personal taste, I understand their anger and frustration.
No comments:
Post a Comment