A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Archives for March 2019

Political Survey of the Academy

by 13 Comments

If all goes as planned by the Republicans who control the government, my adopted state of Florida will require an annual survey of the political beliefs of students at faculty at public universities. This survey is not occurring in isolation. Trump recently signed an executive order aimed at enforcing “free inquiry” on campus and complaints about the liberal domination of the academy are now stock conservative talking points.

Image Credit

One challenge with assessing this plan is that the details are unclear—questions remain about whether the survey will be compelled (which would seem to violate the 1st amendment), whether the data will be anonymous, who will use the data and to what end.

One concern is the question of whether the survey will be compulsory. If it is, it would seem to force students and faculty to engage in compelled expression of their political beliefs. This seems likely to provoke legal challenges based on the 1st amendment. There is also the moral concern about compelling people to identify their political beliefs to the state, something that seems to smell a bit of tyranny.

If the survey is not mandatory and there is no punishment or retaliation for not participating (which could, in theory, result in entire schools not completing the survey), then the 1st amendment concerns evaporate, but there is still the moral concern about the state seeking such information about the political beliefs of citizens.

There is also the concern about the goal of the survey, its intended consequences and unintended consequences. On the face of it, the planned survey seems innocuous, even benign. It is supposed to have a board that will pick or develop an “objective, nonpartisan and statistically valid survey.” As stated, this survey “considers the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented and members of the university community feel free to express their beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom.” Objecting to this would seem to be to oppose free inquiry and free expression, which is presumably why this wording was selected. While I certainly support free expression and free inquiry, I think that there are reasonable concerns with this proposed survey.

While one should always be careful when speculating about motives and the “real intentions” behind proposed laws, they can serve as a reasonable guide when trying to sort out the intended consequences of the law. A main driving force behind this proposed law is the Republican House Higher Education & Career Readiness Chairman Cord Byrd.

Byrd advances an appeal to anecdotal evidence to support the need for the survey, alleging some students shared with him their worries about expressing their political views in class due to a fear of having their grades suffer. If such claims are true, then this would a be a problem—a student’s grades should depend entirely on their performance on the coursework. Students do, of course, have the right to report such discrimination and there is a grade appeal process in place at Florida’s public institutions.

I do acknowledge the obvious: there are bad professors and teaching assistants who grade in an unprofessional manner, sometimes based on their own political and moral values. While there are anecdotes that allege professors engage in this practice, there is a lack of statistical evidence that would support the claim that the problem is significant.  If this is a broad problem, then more rigorous enforcement of the existing grading policies would be in order—a survey would not seem to address this matter. If the problem is extensive and not adequately handled by the existing system, then another approach would be needed—but evidence would be needed that this is a serious enough problem to warrant such an approach.

Byrd also endeavors to justify the survey by appealing to the claim that students are being indoctrinated at public universities. While this is a common conservative talking point, the evidence for this is lacking.  If professors are trying to indoctrinate students, they seem to be very unsuccessful in this task. While students often change their views in college, these changes do not seem to have any liberal bias. While conservative students have spoken of some challenges they faced on campuses, the overall outcome of the experiences are positive and some students have gone from being liberal to conservative. As such, it is reasonable to doubt the notion that universities are engines of liberal indoctrination and hostile to conservative students. Also, this survey seems needless—it is already well known that professors tend to be more liberal than their students, and it is not clear what meaningful new data the proposed survey would provide.

Given Byrd’s reference to fears of indoctrination and grade retaliation, one wonders about the intended consequences of the proposed law. If it is merely to ensure that students are not unfairly graded for their views, then I am fine with that. However, this would hardly seem to address Byrd’s fear of indoctrination. At this point, I can only speculate what the goals are regarding fighting the alleged indoctrination. Will the survey be used to warrant a conservative affirmative action program in which conservatives are hired to balance out the liberals? Will liberals be fired to balance out conservatives?  Will there be a system of ideological enforcement put in place to watch professors for attempts to indoctrinate?  One suspects that the intent is to weaponize the survey; if it was merely to gather information than there would be no talk of the threat of indoctrination.

If this is the case, then it is worth considering the unintended consequences. While some conservatives might praise this move today because it is a weapon against the liberals, it could provide a tool for examining faculty and students for having the right sort of ideology—something that could be abused by the left in the future.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Free Speech Executive Order II: Title IX for Conservatives?

by 8 Comments

While the United States has robust laws protecting freed speech, conservatives have expressed concerns that the liberals of the academy are silencing free speech on campus. They can point to examples in which conservative speakers have been met with hostility and efforts to silence them. They can also point to the fact that most professors self-identify as liberals and note that there are few conservative intellectuals in the ivory towers. From this is it is natural to infer that conservatives are being treated unfairly in the academy and that something must be done to protect them from this oppression and to increase diversity of thought.

Image Credit

In response to these concerns, Trump recently signed a vague executive order which would link federal dollars to how well colleges protect the right to free inquiry. While the order does not make it clear what mechanisms will be used for enforcement or what standards will be employed to judge these matters, the basic idea is clear: if officials perceive that a university is not protecting the right of free inquiry, then they will be punished financially.

To be fair to Trump, this sort of approach already has a well-established precedent in the form of Title IX. This law is aimed at preventing discrimination based on sex in any education program or activity that receives federal money. One could argue that Trump has simply created the long-awaited Title IX for conservatives that forbids discrimination based on political ideology.  Or at least a certain ideology. After all, Trump made it clear that his goal was to give notice to academics who are trying to prevent conservatives “from challenging rigid, far-left ideology.” In any case, defenders of this order can point to Title IX and make an argument by analogy to support their view.

This approach does have merit—as was noted, the basic ideas are similar: using a financial threat to send a message about discrimination. As with any argument by analogy, there is the question of whether the two are adequately similar—this boils down to concerns about whether there are relevant differences that break the analogy.

One key difference is that Title IX deals with biology (sex) rather than ideology and one could argue that this is a relevant difference. Interestingly, one could point to claims about how identity works and make a case as to how sex and ideology are similar.

Another key difference is that women faced a long history of systematic discrimination in education and a significant power disparity existed between men and women necessitating that the state step in to level the playing field (and some would object that the laws have tilted the field in favor of women). In contrast, conservatives enjoy the benefits of the power disparity—they enjoy massive political and economic power across the country and to argue that they are being oppressed would be the height of absurdity.

It can be countered that while conservatives do control the White House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, most state legislatures, and much of the economy, they are still being oppressed by liberals on college campuses. One sarcastic reply would be to mock conservatives as snow flakes and social justice warriors for such complaints, but that would be unfair. After all, even if conservatives hold most of the political and economic power in the country, they could still be oppressed, mistreated or silenced in the context of the college campus and thus in need of protection by the federal government. To use an analogy, the fact that there are rich and powerful women like Clinton and Oprah does not entail that Title IX is not needed on campus. And, as the saying goes, an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere. So, I certainly oppose oppressing, silencing and mistreating conservatives simply because of their ideology—their right to free expression is obviously as valid as my own. But the question remains as to whether this executive order is needed and there is also the concern that it will be weaponized, which leads to the third key difference.

A third key difference is that there are already robust laws in place protecting free inquiry and expression on public campuses. When Richard Spencer wanted to speak at the University of Florida, he was able to use existing laws to do so. In contrast, Title IX was critical to providing women with protection against discrimination. As such, it can be argued that there is no real need for this executive order because existing laws already suffice. This needs to speculation about how the order might be weaponized to serve a political agenda. Ironically, an analogy to Title IX seems to work here as well.

While Title IX seems to be generally a good thing, conservatives and even some liberals have argued that it has been “weaponized.” To be specific, there has been legitimate concern regarding how Title IX was used to severely limit the rights of the accused in the case of sexual assault. There are also real concerns about how Title IX can be weaponized against innocent professors. While some might assert that these are unintended consequences of an otherwise good law, it is reasonable to point out that they are intended consequences of what is probably otherwise a good law. After all, the consequences clearly arise from the underlying values.

While the order’s defenders might liken it to a shield, it hands conservatives (and others) a lump of iron that can readily be hammered into a sword with which to make ideological attacks against “leftist” professors and universities. This is most likely an intended consequence, given Trumps words. While this new weapon might please conservatives, it is worth considering who else might forge a sword from this iron and whose blood it might shed. As such, while I agree that conservatives are entitled to the shield of free speech, this executive order is too easy to weaponize and should thus be opposed.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Mike’s Free Maps #5

by Leave a Comment

Description

This royalty free map collection contains 40 free color maps including towers, a keep, an inn, a town hall and more. Each map has a version with a grid and one without. The PDF files allows you to easily view the maps, the ZIP file contains the JPEG versions. 

Legal Information

You may reduce, enlarge, re-label, crop or color the maps. The creator’s name (“Michael LaBossiere”) must be included in the final published maps if it appears in the original maps. You may not resell these maps. If you use this image in a publication (digital, print or otherwise) you must include this statement:

“Some maps copyright Michael C. LaBossiere, used with permission.”

Free on DriveThruRPG

Free Speech Executive Order I: Conservative Arguments

by 5 Comments

President Trump recently signed an executive order directing federal agencies to link funding for higher education to how universities enforce “free inquiry” on campus. This order was motivated by the claim that professors have endeavored to prevent conservatives from challenging the ideology of the far-left. At this time, the details of how the order will be implemented are lacking.

Image Credit

Since I am often cast as a lefty, it would be expected that I oppose this order. However, I will not be arguing this matter from a leftist perspective. Rather, I will advance arguments enshrined in classic conservative principles in opposition to this order.

One key principle professed by conservatives is the idea of small government. This principle is supposed to manifest in opposition to unnecessary laws, in opposition to government overreach, and in support of local governance. This executive order clearly violates this principle.

First, the order is utterly unnecessary as a means of protecting free speech on college campuses. While some universities have endeavored to keep controversial conservatives and speakers like Richard Spencer off their campuses, the existing free speech laws have sufficed to thwart these efforts. In the case of Richard Spencer, the University of Florida had to let him speak on campus (and the state paid for the security). In the case of public institutions, the first amendment protections apply—thus making it clear that the executive order is attempting to order what already exists: legally protected free expression.

It might be objected that private universities that receive public money would still be free to exclude people from speaking on campus. The easy and obvious conservative reply is that these private universities are private. So, like any private business, they have no legal obligation to provide avenues for free speech. There are, of course, some exceptions—but these are covered by existing laws.

Second, the order is a case of government overreach that seems to be aimed at picking winners and losers in the realm of inquiry. Conservatives profess an opposition to such interference in the free marketplace of ideas, so the state coming down in support of one side (in this case, explicitly going after the allegedly leftist professors) should be anathema to them. Even if, in this case, Trump purports to be putting the might of the state on their side and against those they disagree with.

It might be objected that the order is aimed at making life fair and using the compulsive power of the state to create ideological diversity on campuses. But conservatives have long argued that life is not fair and that the compulsive power of the state should not be used to serve an agenda of diversity. Principled conservatives would not embrace this big government approach—even if it purports to be in their favor.

Third, this order goes against the core conservative principle of local governance. Conservatives have often argued for state and local rights when it comes to making decisions. This order places the federal government over state and local control, making such decisions in faraway Washington, D.C. While a conservative would certainly favor more conservative expression on campuses, to jam this down the throats of the people and to sweep aside states’ rights would be an unacceptable means of doing so.

Conservatives also make a point of being for fiscal responsibility and profess opposition to government bloat. While the order itself comes with no cost, the actual enforcement will require a significant bureaucracy. One obvious analogy is that of Title IX. This law prohibits discrimination based on sex by educational programs receiving federal funding and resulted in the growth of bureaucracy in the federal government and on campuses. If Trump’s executive order is going to have any teeth at all, it will need a similar bureaucracy in place. It will also need a set of standards for sorting out what counts as violating “free inquiry” in all the relevant contexts on campus ranging from the classroom to speaker invitations.

While I am not familiar with the inner workings of the federal government, I am familiar with how universities operate. This order must generate a demand for data on compliance, which means the creation of an office on each campus to gather and report this data as well multiple committees. The office will require administrators and staff. In the case of state institutions, this will require more taxpayer money to fund. In the case of private institutions, they will need to increase tuition. While these costs will not be extreme, they will add even more to the rising cost of education.

Thus, while a conservative would rightfully rejoice at having more conservative thought on campuses, doing this by means of the federal government would be a violation of conservative principles. As such, conservatives should oppose this executive order on conservative grounds.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

The Logic of Conspiracy Theories I: Argument from Authority

by 9 Comments

While the details of each conspiracy theory vary, they typically involve attributing excessive power and influence to a small group engaging in nefarious activities. A classic example is the notion that NASA faked the moon landings. There are also many “false flag” conspiracy theories that range from the idea that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attack to the idea that mass shootings are faked to the claim that the pro-Trump stickers on the mail bomber’s van were placed to frame Republicans. There are also various medical conspiracy theories, such as those fueling the anti-vaccination movement.

Image Credit

There has been considerable research into why people believe in conspiracy theories. An intuitively plausible explanation is that anxiety and feelings of a loss of control lead to accepting such theories. Ironically, people who embrace conspiracy theories seem to be less inclined to act to counter the perceived conspiracy, perhaps because they feel helpless in the face of such imagined power. This is not to say that this always holds true—the conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton running a slavery operation in a pizzeria led to a concerned citizen shooting up the place.

It is certainly tempting to embrace the stereotype of the conspiracy theorist: someone immune to logic, oblivious to opposing evidence and perhaps suffering from mental illness. To broadly dismiss conspiracy theorist using this stereotype would be an error, though it certainly does apply in some cases. My contention is that some conspiracy theorists use the same tools of logic and reasoning as everyone else and I will endeavor to show that this is true.

Since the world is a complicated place and is beyond the understanding of any one person, we all turn to experts when we want to know if something is true or not. For example, most of us lack the time and resources to investigate in person the nature of migration, so we must rely on (supposed) experts to provide us with (one hopes) true claims. Accepting such claims based on the (alleged) expertise of the person making the claim is to use an argument from authority. This argument has the following form:

Premise 1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.

Premise 2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.

Conclusion. Therefore, C is true.

This reasoning is inductive (the premises provide a degree of support for the conclusion that is less than complete) and its strength depends on the quality of the authority/expert making the claim. If the authority is qualified to make reliable claims in the subject area, then the argument would be a good one. For example, believing that this is what an argument from authority is because of my expertise as a philosophy professor who has taught critical thinking/logic since 1989 would be good reasoning, If the alleged authority is not qualified to make reliable claims in the subject area, then the argument would be a fallacious appeal to authority—the premises would fail to properly support the conclusion. For example, if you believed what I said about quantum theory because of my alleged expertise, then you would fall victim to this fallacy—my expertise in philosophy does not confer expertise in quantum theory.

Most people who rationally believe any theory believe it based on an argument from authority—the exceptions are those who are experts in the theory. For example, most of us believe in the theory of relativity because of Einstein and other scientists, not because we have done the research ourselves.  In the case of conspiracy theories, believers often use an argument from authority: they believe the theory because an (alleged) expert has told them it is true. For example, those who accept the anti-vaccination theory point to the infamous paper that asserts a causal link between vaccines and autism or they believe because a celebrity they admire tells them vaccines are dangerous. Those who dislike Trump and believe that Putin has a urination tape as leverage probably do so because they heard the account from a source they want to believe. As such, for almost everyone the reasoned belief in a theory is the result of an argument from authority. So, then, what is the difference between the conspiracy theorist who believes that vaccines are dangerous because of what a celebrity says and a person who accepts relativity because of what Einstein said?

The difference, in general, is that conspiracy theorists tend to fall for fallacious arguments from authority as opposed to accepting well-founded arguments from authority. For example, believing that vaccines cause autism because of a debunked paper or because of what an actor says would be to fall into this fallacy. After all, unless the actor is also a medical expert on vaccines what they say about vaccines has no logical weight.

Resisting fallacious arguments from authority can be challenging, especially when the alleged authority is appealing, or the view being presented fits nicely with what one wants to believe. However, there are standards by which to assess an argument from authority. To be a good argument, it must be such that:

1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.

2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.

3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.

4. The person in question is not significantly biased.

5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.

6. The authority in question must be identified.

If all these conditions are met, then the conclusion is probably true. However, since the argument from authority is inductive it suffers from the classic problem of induction: even if all the premises are true, the conclusion could still turn out to be false.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

White Supremacists vs Muslims

by 10 Comments

After the terrorist attack by an apparent white nationalist in New Zealand, President Trump was offered the opportunity to strongly condemn white supremacists. He declined to do so. While white supremacists killed more Americans in 2017 than another other domestic extremist group, authorities are often reluctant to treat them as terrorists. For example, they are not on the terror watchlist—even though white supremacists meet the definition of “terrorist.”

Image Credit

In contrast, Trump and others are quick to cast most (or even all) Muslims as potential or actual terrorists. Trump and others also present Mexicans and migrants as presenting such a threat that he declared a state of emergency on the southern border. This disparity invites investigation and explanation.

One possibility is that the disparity is warranted—that white nationalists do not present a significant threat and are merely isolated individuals while Muslims, Mexicans and migrants present a significant and organized threat. The obvious problem with this view is that it fails to match the facts. In terms of the number of Americans killed, white supremacists are the deadliest domestic extremist group. Even if they were not the deadliest, this would still not warrant such an extreme disparity in the rhetoric and actions.

One plausible explanation lies in the realm of politics. One key tactic in politics is to demonize a group and cast them as a scapegoat for problems. The targeted group must, obviously enough, not be part of the politician’s base—it must be relatively unimportant to the politician politically and demonizing it must gain more than what is lost in doing so. It obviously also helps if the groups being demonized are relatively weak and even better if they are seen as outsiders.  Demonizing Muslims, Mexicans and migrants works quite well because these groups are relatively weak within the United States and are generally regarded as outsiders. There are also pre-existing prejudices that can be used effectively. Trump and others have made no bones about being anti-Muslim and anti-migrant. They have also openly appealed to such sentiments in others as a political tool.

While Trump and others might get some criticism from the left, casting Mexicans as rapists, migrants as murders and Muslims as terrorists comes with little political cost and considerable political gain with their base. There is also the fact that their base is often afraid of such people and easily buy into the stereotypes, scare tactics and hasty generalizations used to influence them.

While Trump and other politicians in his camp probably do not condone the murder and violence conducted by white supremacists, demonizing and scapegoating white supremacists presents a problem. In the case of migrants, Mexicans and Muslims, Trump is fine with presenting them as a general threat—though he is willing to admit that despite so many being rapists, there are fine people among the Mexicans. What Trump and others do is make hasty generalizations and appeals to anecdotes in order to claim from a few examples or anecdotes about crimes, acts of terror or violence conducted by migrants, Mexicans or Muslims that most of them are thus criminals, violent or terrorists.

Taking the same approach to white supremacists would involve generalizing from the relatively few white people who are domestic terrorists to white people in general. Even if it were restricted to white people who like guns and dislike non-whites, this would still generalize to a significant section of the white population. Demonizing whites to win white votes would not be a winning strategy. Also, Trump’s base includes a significant number of white people who like guns and are not very fond of non-whites. Demonizing them would presumably not work well for him.

It could be pointed out that this, at best, explains why Trump and his ilk demonize Mexicans, migrants and Muslims and not white supremacists. It does not explain why Trump and his fellows are so reluctant to condemn white supremacists and categorize them as terrorists.

One obvious explanation is that white supremacy and racism are part of the ideological, economic, moral and political foundation of the United States. Racism is not just a matter of history—it is still active today across all of America.  While white people often claim that it does not exist, the evidence is rather strong that it does. Interestingly, when people deny that it exists or that they are racist, they often do so in the context of being racist. As such, to be critical of white supremacy and racism is to be critical of the very foundations of the United States and it is to attack part of the institutionalized power of white people. Since the wealth and power of Trump and his fellows are at least partially built on this foundation and maintained by the current institutions, it is hardly surprising that they are unwilling to condemn white supremacists. To do so would be to condemn racism and to thus attack themselves.

In contrast, Islam is not part of the foundation of the United States nor is it part of the institutions that maintain power and wealth. When Trump and his fellows demonize and attack it, they are not attacking the foundation and maintainer of their own wealth and power—it is a safe target for them.

In short, it makes perfect sense why Trump and his fellows attack migrants, Muslims and Mexicans while treading lightly when it comes to white supremacists. Demonizing migrants, Mexicans and Muslims is politically useful while attacking white racism would be to attack what is foundational and sustaining for their wealth and power.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: