Greg Lukianoff is, as most of you know, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. He’s also a lawyer and co-author, with Jon Haidt, of the excellent book The Coddling of the American Mind. Yesterday in Quillette, Lukianoff wrote a piece that many of us may find useful, outlining how to give comebacks to flimsy arguments against free speech. The advice is especially useful now that both extreme Left and extreme Right are finding reasons to curtail speech, the former through demonizing certain opinions that go against Righthink and the latter through banning or censoring books. I think the article below is free, so have a look.
I’m just going to put the arguments down, and if you’re savvy you should be able to give comebacks to most of these. Nobody will get them all, I think, so go back and read the piece. I’ve indented Lukianoff’s arguments below, but have left out the ripostes. For some reason I can’t see the graphics that Lukianoff has embedded in the article.
I’ll note first that anyone using the phrase “freeze peach” when referring to free speech is simply mocking this important concept. On to the objecftions (Lukianoff thanks some people at the end for helping him out.)
Assertion 1: Free speech was created under the false notion that words and violence are distinct, but we now know that certain speech is more akin to violence.
Assertion 2: Free speech rests on the faulty notion that words are harmless.
Assertion 3: Free speech is the tool of the powerful, not the powerless.
Assertion 4: The right to free speech means the government can’t arrest you for what you say; it still leaves other people free to kick you out.
Assertion 5: But you can’t shout fire! in a crowded theatre. (I have to do some self-aggrandizing here by quoting part of his answer):
This old canard, afavourite reference of censorship apologists, needs to be retired. It’s repeatedly and inappropriately used to justify speech limitations. People have been using this cliché as if it had some legal meaning, while First Amendment lawyers point out that it is, as Alan Dershowitz puts it, “a caricature of logical argumentation.” Ken White penned a brilliant and thorough takedown of this misconception. While his piece is no longer available online, you can find a thorough discussion of the arguments by Jerry Coyne here. Please read it before proclaiming that your least favourite language is analogous to “shouting fire in a crowded theatre.”
Assertion 6: The arguments for freedom of speech are outdated.
Assertion 7: Hate speech laws are important for reducing intolerance, even if there may be some examples of abuse.
Assertion 8: Free speech is nothing but a conservative talking point.
Assertion 9: Restrictions on free speech are OK if they are made in the name of civility. (Note that this argument doesn’t hold for this website; as I explain in the Roolz, if your comment is uncivil or insulting to another reader, I don’t have to publish it. On a website like this, I do not have to put up every comment that comes in, though I try to use a light hand when moderating. But First-Amendment-style free speech doesn’t apply to websites, discussion groups, and the like.)
Assertion 10: You need speech restrictions to preserve cultural diversity.
Assertion 11: Free speech is an outdated idea; it’s time for new thinking. (Note that this is the same argument made in #6 above).
Assertion 12: I believe in free speech, but not for blasphemy.
Of these, the one I think it’s most useful to understand is the rebuttal to #7: the claim that “hate speech” doesn’t count as free speech. To answer this properly you’ll have to know what exceptions to First Amendment-style free speech have been carved out of that Amendment by the courts (false advertising, defamation, etc). Indeed, in countries like Germany and Britain, “hate speech” is a violation of the law, but Lukianoff notes that, at least crudely, “hate speech” laws don’t seem to go along with a strong reduction in bigotry, nor would you expect them to.
In his conclusion, Lukianoff once underlines the need for free speech. And speaking personally, I’d recommend that everyone who hasn’t read Mill’s “On Liberty” do so now (it’s free here on the Internet).
Lukianoff:
Free speech is valuable, first and foremost, because, without it, there is no way to know the world as it actually is. Understanding human perceptions, even incorrect ones, is always of scientific or scholarly value, and, in a democracy, it is essential to know what people really believe. This is my “pure informational theory of freedom of speech.” To think that, without openness, we can know what people really believe is not only hubris, but magical thinking. The process of coming to know the world as it is is much more arduous than we usually appreciate. It starts with this: recognise that you are probably wrong about any number of things, exercise genuine curiosity about everything (including each other), and always remember that it is better to know the world as it really is—and that the process of finding that out never ends.
From the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic to the rise of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives and Artificial Intelligence, in this episode Steven Pinker, Matt Ridley, and Michael Shermer challenge conventional narratives and explore how we can continue to move forward.
They discuss the state of democracy, autocracy, and the lessons learned from historical crises, while offering insights into how innovation, rationality, and education can lead us through challenging times.
This session was presented at FreedomFest 2024. To see more speeches and sessions from FreedomFest, visit freedomfest.com/civl.
If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) is on a roll to clean up its act and promulgate freedom of speech and divisive DEI actions. I’ve written before about how UNC-CH adopted institutional neutrality, making it one of seven schools that have done so. Now, according to an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education (CHE), the entire UNC system is dismantling its DEI apparatus. Remember, the CHE isn’t a right-wing site, but the most respected source of reportage about developments in higher education. Click headline to read:
The reporter, Jasper Smith, seems to concentrate on issues of colleges and race.
An excerpt:
In a report released on Wednesday, campuses in the University of North Carolina system outlined how they’ve complied with a directive to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts — such as eliminating staff positions, altering or ending programs, and cutting spending.
Across the system, institutions eliminated 59 jobs and restructured 132 positions. The DEI-related cuts added up to more than $17 million, a majority of which was redirected to “student success” initiatives, according to university officials.
At a time when colleges across the country have been dismantling diversity programs in response to political pressure, the UNC report offers a particularly comprehensive look at how a wide-ranging group of institutions approached the purging of DEI.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the state’s flagship, accounted for the biggest changes: It axed 20 staff positions, reassigned 27 positions, and redirected more than $5 million away from DEI efforts.
The Chapel Hill campus eliminated seven positions in central administration, including the vice provost for equity and inclusion and chief diversity officer. Reassignments include the senior associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion, who in a new role will focus on “professional and leadership development” for students and faculty.
First, why is this something to celebrate? While the origin of DEI (“Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”) may be well intentioned—to give a hand to underperforming minority students—the way it’s worked out has been counterproductive. And not just that—it’s divisive as well. Here are some of its problems (h/t Luana):
a.) DEI initiatives are universally associated with a particular ideology, one derived largely from postmodernism. It sees society as a clash between competing worldviews (in this case, among different ethnic groups or among the sexes), with the most powerful people getting to promulgate their worldview. In that sense it’s divisive, as it sets up a hierarchy of privilege that has led to things like increased anti-semitism in particular and the chilling of speech in general.
b.) DEI instills those lower on the “power” hierarchy with a sense of victimhood, which in some (but not all) cases leads to a sense of futility among those deemed “minoritized”. Why strive to improve if society is holding you down you from the outset?
c.) It has largely replaced merit as a criterion for success with ethnicity, race, or gender. This has largely reduced the quality of education in various fields. It’s because of this that most of the elite schools that initially got rid of standardized testing have now reinstated it.
d.) The initiatives almost uniformly state that their goal is “equity” (equal representation) rather than “equality of opportunity.” These are not the same thing, and leads to the notion that inequities are not the result of anything besides systemic racism and ubiquitous bigotry. This in turn buttresses the view that society is totally and inseparably wedded to racism. I know that, at least in academia, this is not true; but DEI pushes its false narrative that it is.
At any rate, What’s important for the UNC system is that positions aren’t just being “restructured” (a euphemism under which the system continues but with jobs given different names). but eliminated. Maybe there should be a small group of “DEI” people in charge of investigating claims about bias, but, as you know, the whole system has become bloated. (The University of Michigan, for example, has over 240 DEI jobs that costs the system over $30 million a year.)
This is, of course, blamed on the Republicans, and, indeed, it’s mostly the GOP that has pushed these changes, but I can’t say it’s all to the bad:
The changes in the UNC system come as Republican lawmakers, conservative activists, and others continue to push a national anti-DEI movement. Since 2023, 86 anti-DEI bills have been introduced, and 14 have been signed into law, according to The Chronicle’s DEI Legislation Tracker.
The Chronicle has also tallied more than 200 campuses in 30 states that have eliminated or altered diversity offices or programs.
Last year, North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature banned the use of diversity statements and mandatory DEI training, overriding a veto from the state’s Democratic governor, Roy Cooper. The legislation went into effect in December of 2023.
In May of this year, the UNC system’s Board of Governors voted to replace a policy that had mandated certain diversity-related activities on each campus. The system’s new policy emphasized a commitment to nondiscrimination and “institutional neutrality.”
Of course one likely result is that minority representation will fall, especially since the Supreme Court banned race-based admissions. Now I don’t think there’s equality of opportunity of any means, and that is one reason for inequities. But to me the solution is not to substantially lower the admissions bar to create equity for minorities, but to increase equality of opportunity, which must be done by starting with kids at a very young age. We all know how hard that will be, requiring a substantial investment of effort and money (throwing money at schools doesn’t seem to work). And I still believe in a form of affirmative action, one that nevertheless may be illegal under the Supreme Court ruling. In muy view, if two students are pretty much equally qualified, go for the minority student. But that may be “race-based” admissions, and may be prohibited by the Court’s decision.
Regardless, we simply don’t need the DEI bloat that is causing more problems on campus than it solves.
Russia’s attack on Ukraine has delayed its launch, but the ESA’s Rosalind Franklin rover is heading toward completion. It was originally scheduled to launch in 2018, but technical delays prevented it. Now, after dropping Russia from the project because of their invasion, the ESA says it won’t launch before 2028.
But when it does launch and then land on Mars, it will do something no other rover has done: drill down two meters into Mars and collect samples.
The Rosalind Franklin Rover (RFR) was initially called the ExoMars Rover. ExoMars was a two-part joint mission between the ESA and Roscosmos (Russia). The first part is the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter, which is currently in orbit around Mars. The rover is meant to follow the orbiter and has been renamed in honour of British chemist and DNA researcher Rosalind Franklin.
The rover will land in Oxia Planum, a 3.9 billion-year-old, 200-km-wide plain that contains one of the largest regions of exposed clay-bearing rocks on the planet. Oxia Planum was initially a candidate landing site for NASA’s Perseverance Rover, which eventually landed in Jezero Crater. There’s overwhelming evidence that this region was once watery. Oxia Planum is also geologically diverse, with plains, craters, and hills, and is flat and mostly free of obstacles.
Ancient water channels flowed into Oxia Planum in Mars’ past, and it’s possible that these flows carried evidence of life with them. In that sense, the water did some of the work for the rover. Rather than have to traverse a much larger area looking for evidence of life, nature might have delivered it to Oxia Planum for the RFR to find.
The Oxia Planum landing site. Image Credit: By NASA – http://marsnext.jpl.nasa.gov/workshops/2014_05/14_Oxia_Thollot_webpage.pdf, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=44399172The RFR is aimed at astrobiology rather than geology, and if there’s any astrobiological evidence for it to find, it’ll be buried. The subsurface is protected from harmful radiation that could degrade evidence of life. As it moves around Oxia Planum, the RFR will use its ground-penetrating radar to study the subsurface. The radar is called WISDOM for Water Ice Subsurface Deposits Observation on Mars. Its data will be transmitted to Earth, where the ESA will create images of the subsurface, looking for ideal places to drill. Other instruments, like the Adron-RM neutron spectrometer, will help it find desirable water-rich deposits underground.
It will also discover buried obstacles that could make drilling difficult. Though the drill is robust and designed to operate in Mars’ harsh conditions, it could still be damaged.
The Rosalind Franklin Rover will map the subsurface, looking for desirable drilling sites. It can drill down as deep as two meters and collect samples. Image Credit: ESAThe RFR also has wide-angle cameras on a mast to help it investigate its surroundings and find routes. The cameras will also identify hydrothermal deposits for further investigation.
Once a drilling site is selected, the RFR will drill down to a maximum depth of two meters, collecting either a rock core or loose material. After withdrawing its drill, it will place the sample in its Analytical Laboratory Drawer (ALD), where a suite of instruments will examine it for both chemical and morphological evidence of past life.
The suite of instruments is called the Pasteur Payload and includes spectrometers, imagers, molecular analyzers, and other instruments.
The mission will also showcase advanced technologies. It’ll use machine learning to analyze data from its Mars Organic Molecule Analyzer(MOMA) instrument. Its PanCam (Panoramic Camera) system is an advanced system that will provide high-resolution, 3D, multispectral images of the Martian landscape. It even has a miniaturized infrared spectrometer integrated into the drill, called Ma_MISS (Mars Multispectral Imager for Subsurface Studies), to analyze the walls of the borehole as the drill penetrates the surface.
The RFR will have solar panels, but it’ll also be powered by an Americium power unit called a radioisotope heater unit (RHU). This is the first time Americium-241 has been used on a spacecraft, and its job is to keep the rover’s components warm in Mars’ frigid temperatures.
The Rosalind Franklin Rover will be more agile and autonomous than other rovers. It can drive over boulders as large as its wheels and should be able to safely navigate steep slopes. It also has the ability to lift its wheels if they’re stuck in sand or loose material. It can use its wheels to “walk” its way out of the sand.
The ESA deserves credit for severing its relationship with Russia after its invasion of Ukraine and pivoting to complete the mission without Roscosmos’ involvement.
“The war in Ukraine has had a big impact on ExoMars. The spacecraft was ready to move to the launch campaign in Baikonur in April 2022 but was halted because of the invasion and the subsequent termination of the cooperation with Roscosmos, with whom the mission was partnered,” the ESA said in a statement in 2023. “The impact on the team and the disappointment for what happened was tangible, as a lot of effort had been spent in preparing this long-awaited mission.”
Russia was originally going to supply the launch vehicle and the landing platform for the rover. However, after Russia was ousted from the mission, the USA stepped in to provide the launch vehicle. The mission still needs a replacement landing platform, which is one of the reasons for the delayed launch. The ESA says that, unlike the original landing platform, the replacement will be simpler and won’t perform any science of its own. It won’t even have solar panels and once the rover is functioning, the platform will shut down a few days after deploying the lander.
This mission is about science, intellectual curiosity, and nature, not politics. Despite humanity’s woeful behaviour towards one another, our appetite for knowledge remains robust. Many missions suffer delays and other problems, so the RFR is in good company.
If the ESA can achieve its 2028 launch date, the RFR will arrive on Mars six to nine months later, most likely, and begin its scheduled seven-month-long mission to search for evidence of past life. Despite Russia’s bluster and terrible decisions, the mission will continue.
The Rosalind Franklin Rover is a remarkable machine. There’s still a lot of work to do, and the mission still has to land successfully, which is a daunting challenge. But if it does, it may finally provide an answer to one of our most pressing questions: Was there ever life on Mars?
The post How the ESA’s Rosalind Franklin Rover Will Drill for Samples on Mars appeared first on Universe Today.
On January 1, 2024, a skeptic from Malawi named Wonderful Mkhutche shared a video1 of a witch-hunting incident that took place days before on December 28, 2023. In the video, a local mob is shown burying an elderly woman. According to local sources, the woman was accused of causing the death of a family member who had passed away the previous day. These accusations often arise after family members consult local diviners, who claim to be able to identify suspects. In this instance, a local vigilante group abducted the woman. They were in the midst of burying her alive as punishment for allegedly using witchcraft to “kill” a relative when the police intervened and rescued her.
While witch-hunting is largely a thing of the past in the Western world, the persecution of alleged witches continues with tragic consequences in many parts of Africa. Malawi, located in Southeastern Africa, is one such place. Mr. Mkhutche reports that between 300 to 500 individuals accused of witchcraft are attacked and killed every year.
The Malawi Network of Older Persons’ Organizations reported that 15 older women were killed between January and February 2023.2 Local sources suggest that these estimates are likely conservative, as killings related to witchcraft allegations often occur in rural communities and go unreported. Witch-hunting is not limited to Malawi; it also occurs in other African countries. In neighboring Tanzania, for example, an estimated 3,000 people were killed for allegedly practicing witchcraft between 2005 and 2011, and about 60,000 accused witches were murdered between 1960 and 2000.3 Similar abuses occur in Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa, where those accused of witchcraft face severe mistreatment. They are attacked, banished, or even killed. Some alleged witches are buried alive, lynched, or strangled to death. In Ghana, some makeshift shelters—known as “witch camps”—exist in the northern region. Women accused of witchcraft flee to these places after being banished by their families and communities. Currently, around 1,000 women who fled their communities due to witchcraft accusations live in various witch camps in the region.4
The belief in the power of “evil magic” to harm others, causing illness, accidents, or even death, is deeply ingrained in many regions of Africa. Despite Malawi retaining a colonial-era legal provision that criminalizes accusing someone of practicing witchcraft, this law has not had a significant impact because it is rarely enforced. Instead, many people in Malawi favor criminalizing witchcraft and institutionalizing witch-hunting as a state-sanctioned practice. The majority of Malawians believe in witchcraft and support its criminalization,5 and many argue that the failure of Malawian law to recognize witchcraft as a crime is part of the problem, because it denies the legal system the mechanism to identify or certify witches. Humanists and skeptics in Malawi have actively opposed proposed legislation that recognizes the existence of witchcraft.6 They advocate for retaining the existing legislation and urge the government to enforce, rather than repeal, the provision against accusing someone of practicing witchcraft.
Islam7 and Christianity8 were introduced to Malawi in the 16th and 19th centuries by Western Christian missionaries and Arab scholars/jihadists, respectively. They coerced the local population to accept foreign mythologies as superior to traditional beliefs. Today, Malawi is predominantly Christian,9 but there are also Muslims and some remaining practitioners of traditional religions. And while the belief in witchcraft predates Christianity and Islam, religious lines are often blurred, as all the most popular religions contain narratives that sanctify and reinforce some form of belief in witchcraft. As a result, Malawians from various religious backgrounds share a belief in witchcraft.
Witch-hunting also has a significant health aspect, as accusations of witchcraft are often used to explain real health issues. In rural areas where hospitals and health centers are scarce, many individuals lack access to modern medical facilities and cannot afford modern healthcare solutions. Consequently, they turn to local diviners and traditional narratives to understand and cope with ailments, diseases, death, and other misfortunes.10
While witch-hunting occurs in both rural and urban settings, it is more prevalent in rural areas. In urban settings, witch-hunting is mainly observed in slums and overcrowded areas. One contributing factor to witch persecution in rural or impoverished urban zones is the limited presence of state police. Police stations are few and far apart, and the law against witchcraft accusations is rarely enforced11due to a lack of police officers and inadequate equipment for intervention. Recent incidents in Malawi demonstrate that mob violence, jungle justice, and vigilante killings of alleged witches are common in these communities.
Another significant aspect of witch-hunting is its highly selective nature. Elderly individuals, particularly women, are usually the targets. Why is this the case? Malawi is a patriarchal society where women hold marginalized sociocultural positions. They are vulnerable and easily scapegoated, accused, and persecuted. In many cases, children are the ones driving these accusations. Adult relatives coerce children to “confess” and accuse the elderly of attempting to initiate them into the world of witchcraft. Malawians believe that witches fly around at night in “witchcraft planes” to attend occult meetings in South Africa and other neighboring countries.12
The persistence of witch-hunting in Africa can be attributed to the absence of effective campaigns and measures to eliminate this unfounded and destructive practice. The situation is dire and getting worse. In Ghana, for example, the government plans on shutting down safe spaces for victims, and the president has declined to sign a bill into law that would criminalize witchcraft accusations and the act of witch-hunting.
For this reason, in 2020 I founded Advocacy for Alleged Witches (AfAW) with the aim of combating witch persecution in Africa. Our mission is to put an end to witch-hunting on the continent by 2030.13 AfAW was created to address significant gaps in the fight against witch persecution in Africa. One of our primary goals is to challenge the misrepresentation of African witchcraft perpetuated by Western anthropologists. They have often portrayed witch-hunting as an inherent part of African culture, suggesting that witch persecution serves useful socioeconomic functions. (This perspective arises from a broader issue within modern anthropology, where extreme cultural relativism sometimes leads to an overemphasis on the practices of indigenous peoples. This stems from an overcorrection of past trends that belittled all practices of indigenous peoples). Some Western scholars tend to present witchcraft in the West as a “wild” phenomenon, and witchcraft in Africa as having domestic value and benefit. The academic literature tends to explain witchcraft accusations and witch persecutions from the viewpoint of the accusers rather than the accused. This approach is problematic and dangerous, as it silences the voices of those accused of witchcraft and diminishes their predicament.
Due to this misrepresentation, Western NGOs that fund initiatives to address abuses linked to witchcraft beliefs have waged a lackluster campaign. They have largely avoided describing witchcraft in Africa as a form of superstition, instead choosing to adopt a patronizing approach to tackling witch-hunting—they often claim to “respect” witchcraft as an aspect of African cultures.14 As a result, NGOs do not treat the issue of witch persecution in Africa with the urgency it deserves.
Likewise, African NGOs and activists have been complicit. Many lack the political will and funding to effectively challenge this harmful practice. In fact, many African NGO actors believe in witchcraft themselves! Witch-hunting persists in the region due to lack of accurate information, widespread misinformation, and insufficient action. To end witch-hunting, a paradigm shift is needed. The way witchcraft belief and witch-hunting are perceived and addressed must change.
AfAW aims to catalyze this crucial shift and transformation. It operates as a practical and applied form of skepticism, employing the principles of reason and compassion to combat witch-hunting. Through public education and enlightenment efforts, we question and debate witchcraft and ritual beliefs, aiming to dispel the misconceptions far too often used to justify abuses. Our goal is to try to engage African witchcraft believers in thoughtful dialogue, guiding them away from illusions, delusions, and superstitions.
The persistence of abuses linked to witchcraft and ritual beliefs in the region is due to a lack of robust initiatives applying skeptical thinking to the problem. To effectively combat witch persecution, information must be translated into action, and interpretations into tangible policies and interventions. To achieve this, AfAW employs the “informaction” theory of change, combining information dissemination with actionable steps.
At the local level, we focus on bridging the information and action gaps. Accusers are misinformed about the true causes of illnesses, deaths, and misfortunes, often attributing these events to witchcraft due to a lack of accurate information. Many people impute misfortunes to witchcraft because they are unaware of where to seek help or who or what is genuinely responsible for their troubles. This lack of understanding extends to what constitutes valid reasons and causal explanations for their problems.
As part of the efforts to end witch-hunting, we highlight misinformation and disinformation about the true causes of misfortune, illness, death, accidents, poverty, and infertility. This includes debunking the falsehoods that charlatans, con artists, traditional priests, pastors, and holy figures such as mallams and marabouts exploit to manipulate the vulnerable and the ignorant. At AfAW, we provide evidence-based knowledge, explanations, and interpretations of misfortunes.
Our efforts include educating the public on existing laws and mechanisms to address allegations of witchcraft. We conduct sensitization campaigns targeting public institutions such as schools, colleges, and universities. Additionally, we sponsor media programs, issue press releases, engage in social media advocacy, and publish articles aimed at dispelling myths and misinformation related to witch-hunting in the region.
We also facilitate actions and interventions by both state and non-state agencies. In many post-colonial African states, governmental institutions are weak with limited powers and presence. One of our key objectives is to encourage institutional collaboration to enhance efficiency and effectiveness. We petition the police, the courts, and state human rights institutions. Our work prompts these agencies to act, collaborate, and implement appropriate measures to penalize witch-hunting activities in the region.
Additionally, AfAW intervenes to support individual victims of witch persecution based on their specific needs and the resources available. For example, in cases where victims have survived, we relocate them to safe places, assist with their medical treatment, and facilitate their access to justice. In situations where the accused have been killed, we provide support to the victims’ relatives and ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice.
We get more cases than we can handle. With limited resources, we are unable to intervene in every situation we become aware of. However, in less than four years, our organization has made a significant impact through our interventions in Nigeria and beyond. We are deploying the canon of skeptical rationality to save lives, awaken Africans from their dogmatic and superstitious slumber, and bring about an African Enlightenment.
This is a real culture war, with real consequences, and skepticism is making a real difference.
About the AuthorLeo Igwe is a skeptic and director of the Advocacy for Alleged Witches which aims to end witch-hunting in Africa by 2030. His human rights fieldwork has led to his arrest on several occasions in Nigeria.
References