A Chilling of Discourse

David R. Barnhizer
{"title":"A Chilling of Discourse","authors":"David R. Barnhizer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.684255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I argue that the key consequence of the collectives of multicultural, postmodernists, radical feminists, critical race activists, sexuality advocates and others working for radical change is not only the politicization of knowledge in what is after all a realm of politics we call law, but the incoherence of knowledge and the loss of the quality and integrity of our pursuit of knowledge through scholarship. One result is that much of the scholarship and teaching found in the humane and political or noncumulative disciplines such as law are forms of self-interested propaganda in which honesty is muted or excluded and truth-seeking and balance are subordinated to predetermined political agendas. The dominant premise of this essay is that we have established a culture of argument, condemnation and subtle pressure within our academic institutions that is chilling honest discourse about fundamental social concerns in ways that destroy the ideal of the university as a center of open communication in which freedom of discourse in teaching and scholarship are paramount. Academia - which ought to provide solutions and linkages - has itself become a vehicle of intolerance. I challenged such behavior when it was being done by an orthodoxy that used its power to inhibit free thought when I first came into the law school world, and I challenge it here when the identity and ideology of the actors have been reversed and a newly dominant orthodoxy is imposing its will on others.","PeriodicalId":82632,"journal":{"name":"Saint Louis University law journal","volume":"50 1","pages":"361"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saint Louis University law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.684255","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

I argue that the key consequence of the collectives of multicultural, postmodernists, radical feminists, critical race activists, sexuality advocates and others working for radical change is not only the politicization of knowledge in what is after all a realm of politics we call law, but the incoherence of knowledge and the loss of the quality and integrity of our pursuit of knowledge through scholarship. One result is that much of the scholarship and teaching found in the humane and political or noncumulative disciplines such as law are forms of self-interested propaganda in which honesty is muted or excluded and truth-seeking and balance are subordinated to predetermined political agendas. The dominant premise of this essay is that we have established a culture of argument, condemnation and subtle pressure within our academic institutions that is chilling honest discourse about fundamental social concerns in ways that destroy the ideal of the university as a center of open communication in which freedom of discourse in teaching and scholarship are paramount. Academia - which ought to provide solutions and linkages - has itself become a vehicle of intolerance. I challenged such behavior when it was being done by an orthodoxy that used its power to inhibit free thought when I first came into the law school world, and I challenge it here when the identity and ideology of the actors have been reversed and a newly dominant orthodoxy is imposing its will on others.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
话语的寒蝉
我认为,多元文化、后现代主义者、激进女权主义者、批判种族活动家、性倡导者和其他为激进变革而努力的人的集体的主要后果,不仅是我们称之为法律的政治领域中的知识政治化,而且是知识的不连贯,以及我们通过学术追求知识的质量和完整性的丧失。结果之一是,在人文、政治或非累积性学科(如法律)中发现的许多学术和教学都是自私自利的宣传形式,在这些宣传中,诚实被压制或排斥,寻求真相和平衡从属于预先确定的政治议程。这篇文章的主要前提是,我们已经在我们的学术机构中建立了一种争论、谴责和微妙压力的文化,这种文化正在以某种方式削弱关于基本社会问题的诚实讨论,从而破坏了大学作为开放交流中心的理想,在这种中心中,教学和学术的言论自由是至高无上的。应该提供解决办法和联系的学术界本身已成为不容忍的工具。当我第一次进入法学院的时候,当这种行为是由一个利用其权力来抑制自由思想的正统派所做的时候,我对这种行为提出了质疑,在这里,当行动者的身份和意识形态被逆转时,当一个新的占主导地位的正统派将自己的意志强加给他人时,我对这种行为提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Local Human Rights Lawyering Human Rights Law and the Taxation Consequences for Renouncing Citizenship Making Black and Brown Lives Matter: Incorporating Race Into the Criminal Procedure Curriculum Diversity as a Law School Survival Strategy Teaching Current Trends and Future Developments in Intellectual Property
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1