Free Speech Anyone?

 

            Free speech is a tricky thing. I enjoy free speech when it is mine. After all, I’m a reasonable guy who always thinks things through carefully. Ask any of my friends…shoot you can even ask my wife and kids. They will tell you that I always say things that are worth listening to. Right?

            One of the things that I discovered as a soldier was that I had given up a certain amount of my free speech. Army Regulations prohibited me from speaking out against the President, members of congress, Army leadership, and other members of the government. And should you think these were empty unenforced rules, I had a fellow officer and friend cashiered for attending a political rally in uniform. There was no discussion, no appeals, no second chances. He was summarily dismissed from the service. If this sounds harsh, remember that as soldiers we serve all presidents, no matter the party and no matter our personal political inclinations. So as a soldier, I had to always remember that I needed to be circumspect in the words that I let slip from my lips. So as someone who’s had to self-censor, I’ve watched the ongoing battle of wills between President Trump and certain schools with great interest. After all, this is fundamentally about freedom of speech. Do not be fooled by various proclamations and news reports. At its core, this conflict is about free speech and its exercise.

            President Trump and many others in the Republican (MAGA) Party find fault with higher education in general and the Ivy League specifically. They make grandiose claims about these universities being totally devoted to liberalism. With grave speech they trot out a seemingly endless parade of examples of how far out of mainstream thought these schools are. They also provide many examples of how more conservative students are hounded and abused by their professors and fellow students. And while such behavior is unacceptable, it does not represent the student experience as a whole. Again, this is a battle over free speech. While it is true that the academic world is predominantly liberal; it is not one vast sea of blue with only the occasional island of red. A dispassionate examination of the data reveals a more complex picture. Any university worthy of the name university seeks to broaden its ideological makeup. A diverse faculty and student population leads to a vibrant and thriving educational institution. This diversity supports the academic ideal.

            In a clash of ideas free speech enables competing ideas a full voice. Ideally each side provides the idea and supports it with data. Unfortunately, in this method one of the ideas is found wanting and rejected, leaving the rejected side feeling…well, rejected. None of us like losing. The bitter sting of defeat should lead us to introspection and reexamination of our logic and data.

            The academic world is built on this principle. Someone develops an idea, does the appropriate research, develops their argument, and then presents their proposal for examination by recognized experts in their field. If their idea survives then it is accepted into the cannon. One of the keystone components of this system is a dedication to the truth, no matter where it leads. Unfortunately for many, their proposals do not pass muster and are discarded. If that is the case then one must revisit your idea and evidence, seeking the means to strengthen your case. This rigorous competition leads to a fuller understanding of our world and how we best interact with it, which is why the actions of our current administration in relation to the university world concerns me.

            The administration seeks to shape the academic world through various types of coercion. These tactics include cutting off all government support, denying foreign students visas, and dictating university policy. Of course, the government may deny a specific grant application for pursuit in an area it does not support; but, to simply cut off all funding is the tactic of a bully and will have a deleterious effect on important other research efforts. All of these are an unacceptable intrusion into the academic world.

            Our nation has built a constellation of universities which draw the brightest students from around the world. As a nation and culture, we profit greatly from this system. We should not tear it down simply because of a perceived liberal bias. If we want to change the university world, we must engage it in the realm of ideas. To coerce a university into submission through such oppressive tactics transforms it from an educational institution into a propaganda arm of the government, an organization not to be trusted. To continue to pursue this process is to demean the academic freedom and free speech. The current administration takes umbrage at the criticism coming from the academic community, which it feels is unfair. Perhaps some of the criticism is unfair. The solution lies not in persecution but in academic engagement.

Memes Rarely Communicate (Or Posting Responsibly)

 

            As a teacher of English at both the High School and College level, I often lectured my students concerning the meaning of words and the need to choose their words carefully. Words have very specific meanings and when communicating we must invest the time required to identify, select, and use the word that carries the exact meaning we desire. Clearly communicating a position or concept takes time and effort; both things most of us find in short supply. This is why we often resort to using Memes. These pictures coupled with a few short, often sarcastic, phrases attempt to communicate large ideas or policies with one hasty viewing. Many memes are simply humorous and highly successful in generating a chuckle, occasionally even a belly laugh. Often these humorous memes take advantage incongruencies or congruencies of the English language. I do not fault those memes. What I find distressing are those memes which abuse the language, especially in word choice.

            Often those who compose memes sling about words such as “Marxist,” “Fascist,” “Communist,” “terrorist,” “radical,” “reactionary,” and others. These words do not truly communicate. Rather, they inflame. Sometimes I do not think we want to communicate or convince. We just enjoy stirring things up. I often see such things shared under the line, “Watch how ______ owns the libs/conservatives.” We let our political inclinations and intellectual laziness guide our word choice. And in our current cultural and political milieu this tends to separate instead of illuminating or bringing together. We often employ words that we would find nearly impossible to define with any accuracy, especially political words. We use them to shore up our own bona fides within our circle or to provoke those who we disagree with.

            Such practices are intellectually dishonest and do not serve the nation well. Currently, we desperately need to find common ground. Instead of using social media platforms to communicate ideas and build consensus, we’re deepening the chasm which separates the various constituencies that make up our political landscape. At a time when we need to come together, we’re pulling apart. This is due in large part to the reckless way we use social media, embracing the relative anonymity of the internet world.

            Most of us do not create the meme, we just “share” it. In our minds this puts some distance between us and the offended. When taken to task for our intellectual dishonesty, we blame the offended. “Well, you just have thin skin.” We ridicule others for being “easily triggered.” As if that somehow absolves us from our coarse, rude, or dishonest behavior. Often memes, especially the political ones, traffic in lies and fabrications. The creator makes the casual assumption that the reader either is ignorant of the facts or is unwilling to make the effort to verify. When we share these kinds of memes we share in the lie and the resultant cultural chaos. Simply passing it off as a joke, after all they shouldn’t be so easily offended, does not absolve us of our guilt. We are responsible for how we use available media.

            Scripture reminds us that “to whom much is given, much is expected,” Luke 12:48. The modern internet is a tremendous resource. With it I can communicate near instantaneously with people around the globe. I can conduct legitimate research into any subject my mind can conceive. With my smart-phone I can access and share data any time and almost any place. Sadly, this astounding capability also enable me to spread lies and disinformation just as easily. For those of us who are Christians, are we truly comfortable with how we use this tool? Do we glorify the Lord and further the spread of His kingdom through our postings and sharings? For those of us who do not claim the name of Christ, how will our children, grandchildren, and other future generations judge our behaviors? Are we improving things or are we contributing to the chaotic erosion of things that are good and meaningful in our culture? Perhaps if we thought a bit more about the veracity and potential impact of our postings we might hesitate before hitting post, send, or like. Are we moving our society, culture, nation, and neighborhood in a good direction? Have we carefully considered our word choice? Do we even think, or are we simply enjoying the momentary rush of being sarcastic? These are questions we ought to consider as we navigate this brave new digital landscape.

A Hat or A Plane?

 

            As a retired Army Officer, I often sport a hat emblazoned with U.S. Army Retired. I like wearing it. After all, I spent twenty-seven years as a soldier, NCO, and officer. Due to our current cultural climate, many people stop and thank me for my service, to which I reply, “It was my honor and privilege to serve.” And it was.

            Not everyone can serve, and many who start a career shipwreck their service on a variety of different shoals, drug use, DWI, excessive debt, and a variety of other improprieties. Serving our nation in the military is a privilege. Sometimes a person’s behavior limits or curtails the privilege to serve. Among the behaviors is accepting a gift, or emolument. Marriam-Webster defines emolument as: the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites. Interestingly the older meaning of emolument is an advantage.

            Most of the time, this does not figure in an officer’s career. But as a member of the Signal Corps, this played a fairly significant role in my career. As a Signal Officer, I constantly dealt with contractors. I oversaw contractors in the fulfillment of their contract. I worked with contractors seeking to renew their contract. I also worked with contractors seeking to procure a contract for equipment and services. Due to this role, I attended numerous training sessions and briefings concerning how to interact with contractors, and in all of them we were warned about accepting gifts, or emoluments, from contractors. The general rule of thumb was that if the price of the gift exceeded the price of a baseball cap, I could not accept it. Regularly I had to graciously refuse a gift, once a contractor offered to take me and my wife on a nice golf outing in Germany. But most of the time they knew the rules and acted accordingly. We had to ensure that we did not even give the appearance of inappropriate behavior; which makes the President considering accepting the Qatari offer of a 747 rather stunning.

            Article II, Section 1, Clause 7, better known as the emoluments clause, states: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them. As reported, the Qatari gift of the 747 would go from Air Force One to the Presidential Library and be available for President Trump’s personal use after he leaves office. It is hard for me to accept the idea that somehow this is akin to picking up a put in golf. Even some in his own party are very uncomfortable with such blatant disregard for the constitution.

            President Clinton allowed generous donners to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom and appropriately endured a lengthy investigation. Our leaders must not allow even the whiff of impropriety to cloud their ability to discharge the duties of their office. For our president to even consider accepting such a “gift” calls into question his judgement regarding any other transaction with the Qatari government. It also erodes trust in his decision-making process for all other transactions.

            It is a privilege to serve, and we need leaders who understand that concept and willingly embrace the stringent nature of public service. Public office should not be considered an opportunity to enrich oneself at the expense of propriety, the voters, and trust in our national institutions. Congress needs to step in and investigate. If we allow the president to flout the constitution, how can we hold others accountable to the same document and standard. If we enable such behavior, we enable institutionalized graft and corruption.

How could we then look at junior officers and tell them, “Do not accept anything more expensive than a baseball cap?”