Friday, 11 April 2025

STAND UP FOR TRUTH TELLING

More about free speech. The Trump administration is forever claiming its adherence to free speech. The Vice President has even criticised other countries for their lack of free speech. The country now most actively seeking to curtail and control free speech is the United States of America.

What is going on, right now, with federal funding of universities is an outrage. Not only is the current administration seeking to get rid of the Department of Education entirely but it has blackmailed and bullied universities to change some of its programs the government thinks are critical. An article in the Guardian (from Reuters) reads, inter alia:

Columbia University has yielded to a series of changes demanded by the Trump  Administration as a pre-condition for restoring $400m in federal funding the government pulled this month amid allegations that the school tolerated antisemitism on campus.
The university released  a memo outlining its agreement with Donald Trump’s administration hours before an extended deadline set by the government was to expire.
Columbia acquiesced to most of the administration’s demands in a memo that laid out measures including banning face masks on campus, empowering security officers to remove  or arrest individuals, and taking control of the department that offers courses on the Middle East from its faculty.
The Ivy League university’s response is being watched by other universities that the Trump Administration has sanctioned as it advances its policy objectives in areas ranging from campus protests to transgender sports and diversity initiatives.
The Trump administration has warned at least 60 other universities of possible action over alleged failure to comply with federal civil rights laws related to antisemitism. It has also targeted at least three law firms that the president says helped his political opponents or  helped prosecute him unfairly.
Among the most contentious of the nine demands, Columbia agreed to place its Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies department under a new official, the memo said  taking control away from its faculty.

In response to this Andrew Graham, political economist, former master of Balliol College, Oxford and former director of the Scott Trust has written a piece for the Guardian entitled, Academic freedom in the US is under threat – universities of the world, unite! which can be found at:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/09/universities-lies-truth-columbia-harvard-princeton

In his concluding paragraph he states:
The truth is almost always partial, debatable and context dependent. Yet, as Bernard Williams argued so convincingly inTruth and `Truthfulness, academics must be truth-tellers. We cannot be neutral with respect to fake news, misinformation or outright lies. No matter where these come from, they must be called out. If a university does not believe this and does not act accordingly, it does not deserve to be a university.
With Columbia having capitulated, and with Harvard and Princeton under pressure to follow suit, every university, not just across the US, but around the globe, must unite in standing up for truth-telling.

Wednesday, 9 April 2025

WHAT ABOUT FREE SPEECH

I have been recently puzzled by how the House of Representatives has succeeded in blocking legislation being put forward in the House. There is something to do with numbers of days. Somehow the House of Representative has turned one day into the length of a term. So if anyone seeks to introduce legislation they have to wait for the day to end. Since there is a never ending day, nothing can get done, unless some special rule is put in place. I confess I have no idea how that is meant to work What sort of fantasy land is this?

How fact and fiction seem to operate in the current United States Congress is beyond comprehension. It would appear that Orwell’s 1984 Ministry of Truth has actually taken over the whole of Government in the United States. From the extraordinary deceptions and misrepresentations made by the President’s Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, openly claiming lies to be facts, with outright denials of visibly published texts. Nothing is real. Nothing of what one sees, reads or hears is real anymore. We are supposed to believe in bluster and bluff. Simply because a pronouncement is made by the President, or Secretary of State, Defence or Intelligence, we are meant to accept it as truth. The Press secretary is always stating that ‘The Secretary of Defence’ or ‘The Director of National Intelligence’ has  verified this or that assertion, so it must be true. She equates the Office with unimpeachable integrity. Never mind the truth or the outright denials by the individuals holding the office, in the face of actual text. Real words, visually displayed, apparently have no meaning.

As an example, Ms Leavitt has an extraordinary ability to reduce matters of actual import to absurdity. She recently asked (I paraphrase) “Why has the Atlantic downgraded their term War Plans to Attack Plans which are clearly not classified” Does she really not hear what she is saying? Does she really believe there is a difference in what we can see and hear, between the words and the context of ‘war’ and ‘attack’?

This is all in the name of free speech. The concept of free speech has descended into something almost entirely without meaning. Whereas once it meant the free flow of ideas and opinion, traditionally based on some knowledge, experience, evidence and veracity, it has now moved into the realms of free for all fantasy.

Free speech has long been held to be a human right and has accordingly been incorporated into bills of rights and constitutions in countries across the world. There are particular safeguards in the United States Constitution. The very first amendment incorporates all elements of free thought - religion, speech, press, assembly and the right to petition the government:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are however certain responsibilities when it comes to exercising the right to speak, as we all have a duty of care towards each other under the rule of law. It is not considered correct to shout out ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. It is not considered correct to bully someone into believing a falsehood or to incite someone to commit an offence of any kind. It is not considered correct to insult, demean and disrespect any individual with hateful, harmful, racist, bigoted and sexist rhetoric. There are matters and views which are abhorrent to human interaction and accordingly various aspects of speech, oral or written, have been proscribed by law.

Fortunately those maters are few and limited. It is OK to have different opinions about politics, religion and personal preferences,  but not to the extent of doing harm, mental or physical, towards another. That is part of our duty of care. What is of concern at present is the lack of care exhibited by so many in responsible positions.

In my observations of the political makeup in the United States, under the guise of freedom of speech, never has this speech been so corrosive and divisive. The President is entirely self obsessed. He expects to be lauded and admired at all times. Any person disagreeing or offering objection is instantly vilified as a nasty person, of low intelligence and an enemy of the state. His behaviour is classic psychotic self aggrandisement. His acolytes perpetuate this view and support him in every way by constantly referring to him as an unerring brilliant leader who can do no wrong. This is done calculatingly and strategically in his presence. Whenever one of his team speaks within his hearing there will inevitably be some compliment and deference made towards him, with accompanying pointed gesture of some kind.

This adulation,  however goes further. Any criticism is viewed as an attack. Any opposing view is an attack, Nothing in apposition should be allowed. Freedom of speech is only for those who agree. Anyone who has the temerity to disagree has no right to free speech. Consequently all members of the Democratic Party are demons and anyone not it line must be vilified and ostracised.  This is a constant refrain.  Ms Leavitt has continuously referred to low level fake journalists. Equally she has referred to Judges, who have issued rulings against Trump and his administration, as low level democratic anti Trump activists. She has even included the wives of Judges in her vilifications, as democratic activists.   All dissidents are low level in her view.

The constant referencing of first amendment rights by Trump and his cohorts is as if it only applies to them and no one else. Indeed, it is as if the whole of the constitution is intended to apply solely to  his view. What is most appalling however, is that the Supreme Court, in its current rulings, seems to allow that view to prevail. Immunity and sidestepping due process are a diminution of the rule of law which does not bode well for the future.

As to first amendment rights, I wonder just how far any petition to the Government to redress grievances will get  in the current climate. There have been some demonstrations around the country and numerous hand painted signs calling for resistance against dictatorship an a return to democracy, as well as a number of broadcasters all over the media and internet. Whether any of this will bring about sanity and a return to the rule of law is a matter of some doubt. The separation and balance of powers seems to be fading away in the face of gigantic self interests.