A brief amuse-tête: About a week ago, I published a post on here titled “Liberalism Consumes Itself at Stanford Law.” It claimed that the Stanford law students who, in effect, cancelled the talk of an eminent federal judge, Kyle Duncan, are not best seen as “illiberal” or for that matter “progressive,” if progressivism is taken to be something other than a variant and descendant of the liberal tradition. Rather, the students rooted themselves firmly in the liberal tradition itself, acting and speaking in the name of free speech, human liberation, and the principles of John Stuart Mill. They are “champions, not enemies, of liberalism.” The resulting conflict with right-liberalism is best understood as a civil war, an intramural conflict within liberalism on the part of forces that all subscribe to fundamental liberal premises, yet interpret them differently.
Like magic, enter Dr John Adenitire, a Senior Lecturer in the School of Law and a Fellow of the Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences at Queen Mary, University of London. Dr. Adenitire will give a talk on March 29, at University College London, titled “A Liberal Defence of No-Platforming.” Obviously I haven’t had a chance to hear the talk, as it hasn’t yet taken place, but I post the abstract below in italics; it fits the account I offered like a glove.
A Liberal Defence of No-Platforming
“I defend a definition of no-platforming as the practice by private actors of obstructing or attempting to obstruct a speaker on the ground that the speech or the speaker is deeply objectionable, usually for moral reasons. I offer a liberal and rights-based defence of no-platforming: no-platforming is protected by the liberal rights to free speech and association except when it is violent. The implication of the argument is that those committed to protecting free speech also ought to protect non-violent forms of no-platforming. The free speech rights of no-platformers will normally need tobe balanced against the free speech rights of those being no-platformed. This may entail enabling no-platformed speakers to be heard despite the obstruction by no-platformers. Nevertheless, the moral conflict is not simply between free speech and non-discrimination, or between free speechand academic freedom. It is a conflict between free speech and free speech.”
I suspect this sort of account represents the future of liberalism. When future right-liberal speakers are cancelled, they will at least have the comfort of knowing that they are being cancelled in the name of the very principles they hold dear.
You made me laugh out loud: “I suspect this is the future of liberalism”, hilarious.
“As for forms of governance let fools contest : whatever’s best administered is best.”
Alexander Pope
We are lost, imploding.
"like a glove" indeed. Synchronicity doesn't come any better.