Archive for February 27th, 2013

On the degradation of societal values

Each month, in my post office box, I receive a copy of Hillsdale College’s Imprimis, a publication which uses speeches delivered at Hillsdale’s various events to promote civil and religious liberty. I look forward to receiving this each month, but I found the latest edition (January 2013) to be particularly interesting as it approached a subject which I have thought about many times, but it approached it from an angle to which I hadn’t given much thought.

Nathan Harden, editor of education news website The College Fix examined a slow and steady degradation of not only the way people are taught in many educational institutions, but also of the values which are promoted in such settings and influence the minds of the students.

I see a similar thing in society as a whole, and although I value the freedom for people to live their lives as they see fit (within legal parameters, obviously), I do also believe that society is at its best when certain basic and fundamental values are upheld by the majority of society. I see some of these as being “the family unit” (religious beliefs aside, I am a proponent of it being natural and best for a child to be brought up by a mother and father, as per the natural order of things) and having a general level of respect for one another. I believe these things have been eroded slowly over many years, and society is suffering because of it.

Nathan Harden sees something similar in the educational system. While Nathan looks at this purely from an educational perspective, I see it as a cycle where the direction of society is leading to educational outcomes and educational outcomes are leading to the direction of society. To that end, I found Nathan’s piece to be very interesting, and to give me a greater understanding of a problem which I have seen for some time.

Hillsdale graciously allow for the full republication of Imprimis as long as credit is given. Before I sign off and leave you with the January 2013 edition, may I recommend that if you find this work to be particularly interesting, that you take a look at some of the previous editions of Imprimis and then consider taking out a free subscription to Imprimis. If you found this as interesting as I did, then I can almost guarantee that seeing Imprimis arrive in the mail each month will be a highlight of the month for you, just like it is for me.


The following is Copyright © 2013 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.

Man, Sex, God, and Yale

NATHAN HARDEN is editor of The College Fix, a higher education news website, and blogs about higher education for National Review Online. A 2009 graduate of Yale, he has written for numerous publications, including National Review, The Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, The New York Post, and The Washington Times. He was a 2011 Robert Novak Fellow at the Phillips Foundation, a 2010 Publius Fellow at the Claremont Institute, and is author of the recent book Sex and God at Yale: Porn, Political Correctness, and a Good Education Gone Bad.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on September 20, 2012.

IN 1951, William F. Buckley, Jr., a graduate of Yale the year before, published his first book, God & Man at Yale. In the preface, he described two ideas that he had brought with him to Yale and that governed his view of the world:

“I had always been taught, and experience had fortified the teachings, that an active faith in God and a rigid adherence to Christian principles are the most powerful influences toward the good life. I also believed, with only a scanty knowledge of economics, that free enterprise and limited government had served this country well and would probably continue to do so in the future.”

The body of the book provided evidence that the academic agenda at Yale was openly antagonistic to those two ideas—that Buckley had encountered a teaching and a culture that were hostile to religious faith and that promoted collectivism over free market individualism. Rather than functioning as an open forum for ideas, his book argued, Yale was waging open war upon the faith and principles of its alumni and parents.

Liberal bias at American colleges and universities is something we hear a lot about today. At the time, however, Buckley’s exposé was something new, and it stirred national controversy. The university counterattacked, and Yale trustee Frank Ashburn lambasted Buckley and his book in the pages of Saturday Review magazine.

Whether God & Man at Yale had any effect on Yale’s curriculum is debatable, but its impact on American political history is indisputable. It argued for a connection between the cause of religious faith on the one hand, and the cause of free market economics on the other. In a passage whose precise wording was later acknowledged to have been the work of Buckley’s mentor Willmoore Kendall—a conservative political scientist who was driven out of Yale a few years later—Buckley wrote:

“I consider this battle of educational theory important and worth time and thought even in the context of a world situation that seems to render totally irrelevant any fight except the power struggle against Communism. I myself believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level.”

This idea, later promoted as “fusionism” in Buckley’s influential magazine National Review, would become the germ of the Reagan coalition that united social conservatives and free market libertarians—a once-winning coalition that has been lately unraveling.

I graduated from Yale in 2009, fifty-nine years after Buckley. I had a chance to meet him a couple of years before his death, at a small gathering at the home of a professor. Little did I know at the time that I would write a book of my own that would serve, in some ways, as a continuation of his famous critique.

My book—which I entitled Sex and God at Yale—shows that Yale’s liberals are still actively working to refashion American politics and culture. But the devil is in the details, and it’s safe to say that there are things happening at Yale today that Buckley could scarcely have even imagined in 1951. While the Yale of Buckley’s book marginalized or undermined religious faith in the classroom, my book tells of a classmate who was given approval to create an art object out of what she claimed was blood and tissue from self-induced abortions. And while the Yale of Buckley’s book was promoting socialist ideas in its economics department, my book chronicles Yale’s recent employment of a professor who publicly praised terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

My, how times have changed!

There is clearly a radical sexual agenda at work at Yale today. Professors and administrators who came of age during the sexual revolution are busily indoctrinating students into a culture of promiscuity. In fact, Yale pioneered the hosting of a campus “Sex Week”—a festival of sleaze, porn, and debauchery, dressed up as sex education. I encountered this tawdry tradition as an undergrad, and my book documents the events of Sex Week, including the screening in classrooms of hard-core pornography and the giving of permission to sex toy manufacturers and porn production companies to market their products to students.

In one classroom, a porn star stripped down to bare breasts, attached pinching and binding devices to herself as a lesson in sadomasochism, and led a student around the room in handcuffs. On other occasions, female students competed in a porn star look-alike contest judged by a male porn producer, and a porn film showing a woman bound and beaten was screened in the context of “instruction” on how students might engage in relationships of their own.

And again, these things happened with the full knowledge and approval of Yale’s senior administrators.

As might be expected, many Yale students were offended by Sex Week, but university officials defended it in the name of “academic freedom”—a sign of how far this noble idea, originally meant to protect the pursuit of truth, has fallen. And the fact that Yale as an institution no longer understands the substantive meaning of academic freedom—which requires the ability to distinguish art from pornography, not to mention right from wrong—is a sign of its enslavement to the ideology of moral relativism, which denies any objective truth (except, of course, for the truth that there is no truth).

Under the dictates of moral relativism, no view is any more valid than any other view, and no book is any greater or more worth reading than any other book. Thus the old idea of a liberal education—that each student would study the greatest books, books organized into a canon based on objective criteria that identify them as valuable—has given way to a hodgepodge of new disciplines—African-American Studies, Latino Studies, Native American Studies, Women’s Studies, Gay and Lesbian Studies—based on the assumption that there is no single way to describe the world that all serious and open-minded students can comprehend.

Indeed, Yale administrators have taken their allegiance to cultural relativism so far that they invited a sworn enemy of America to be a student, admitting Sayed Rahmatulla Hashemi—a former diplomat-at-large for the Taliban—in 2005. Talk about diversity!

Sitting for my final exam in International Relations, I found myself next to Hashemi, whose comrades were fighting and killing my fellow citizens in the mountains of Afghanistan at that very moment. The fact that the Taliban publicly executes homosexuals and infidels, and denies girls and women the right to go to school, gave no pause to the same Yale administrators who pride themselves on their commitment to gay rights, feminism, and academic freedom. In an interview, Hashemi boasted to the New York Times: “I could have ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Instead, I ended up at Yale.”

It’s hard to overlook the paradox:
By enrolling Hashemi in the name of diversity, Yale abandoned the principle of human rights—the very principle that allows diverse individuals, including those of different faiths, to coexist peacefully.

It was my aim in writing Sex and God at Yale to bring accountability to Yale’s leaders in hopes of reform. Yale has educated three of the last four presidents, and two of the last three justices appointed to the Supreme Court. What kind of leaders will it be supplying in ten years, given its current direction?

Unfortunately, what’s happening at Yale is indicative of what is occurring at colleges and universities across the country. Sex Week, for example, is being replicated at Harvard, Brown, Duke, Northwestern, the University of Illinois, and the University of Wisconsin. Nor would it suffice to demand an end to Sex Weeks on America’s college campuses. Those events are, after all, only symptoms of a deeper emptiness in modern academia. Our universities have lost touch with the purpose of liberal arts education, the pursuit of truth. In abandoning that mission—indeed, by denying its possibility—our institutions of higher learning are afflicted to the core.

The political freedom that makes a liberal arts education possible requires an ongoing and active defense of liberty. Try exercising academic freedom in a place like Tehran or Kabul! Here in the U.S., we take our liberty far too much for granted. To the extent that Yale and schools like it succeed in producing leaders who subscribe to the ideology of moral relativism—and who thus see no moral distinction between America and its enemies—we will likely be disabused of this false sense of security all too soon.

February 27th, 2013 at 04:37pm

On Federal Labor’s attempts to muzzle free speech

Last year the federal Labor Party announced an ambitious plan to consolidate existing anti-discrimination laws in to one law. On the surface, it would seem like a sensible idea to try and simplify laws, but this was not just a “consolidation” by any known definition of the word; this was a massive expansion and redefinition of the laws.

Early on in the piece, the Institute of Public Affairs read the proposed draft legislation and noticed that “discrimination” was being redefined as anything which caused offence. The legislation would have made it illegal to offend someone with a political comment, among other things.

This set off alarm bells, and yet it was quite strange that for some months the Institute of Public Affairs was almost the sole voice of opposition to the draft legislation. In the end, their efforts paid off and almost certainly claimed the scalp of (now former) Attorney General Nicola Roxon, and led to the Coalition vowing to repeal the legislation if it ever becomes law. Right now, it’s unlikely to become law, but it’s still a possibility.

Simon Breheny, Chris Berg, Tim Wilson and John Roskam from the Institute of Public Affairs were largely responsible for the organisation’s work to expose the dangers of this draft legislation, and are owed a debt of gratitude by the entire country in my opinion.

Simon Breheny, Director of the Legal Rights Project at the Institute of Public Affairs, was one of the people to give evidence to the Senate committee looking in to this draft legislation. His opening remarks summed up the problems with the draft legislation very well.

The exposure draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 is an attack on our fundamental freedoms.

The draft Bill is not simply a consolidation of existing Commonwealth Acts as the government has claimed. It is a radical overhaul of anti-discrimination law.

There are many problems with the draft Bill.

The most concerning aspect of the draft Bill is the significant threat it poses to freedom of speech. The definition of discrimination has been expanded to include conduct that offends or insults.

Given this new definition of discrimination, the inclusion of “political opinion” as a ground on which a claim can be made is absurd and dangerous. Under the draft Bill, you could be taken to court for saying something that offended someone because of a political opinion they hold.

The freedom to express political opinions in all areas of public life – even those that offend and insult others – is central to the functioning of our system of government as the High Court has found. By undermining freedom of speech the draft Bill poses a grave threat to the health of Australian democracy.

It is wrong to say that the draft Bill could be amended to a point where it is acceptable. Simply removing the words “offend” and “insult” from the new definition of discrimination will not save the draft Bill. The real problem is the whole project itself.

The draft Bill is not about anti-discrimination. Instead, the consolidation project has resulted in a draft Bill that undermines liberty and places the state at the centre of our interpersonal relationships. Rather than making the law clearer and simpler, the draft Bill adds significant complexity to this area of law.

The draft Bill also reverses the burden of proof for claims of discrimination. This is completely unacceptable. The person bringing a legal claim should always bear the burden of proving their case. This principle – the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty – is the centrepiece of a just legal system. Reversing the burden of proof would create an unjust system.

The draft Bill will erode civil society by encouraging reliance on apparatus of the state for the resolution of private disputes. It threatens to lead Australia towards a US-style culture of litigation.

The constant erosion of our freedoms must end. This draft Bill is a disturbing example of the ever-increasing power of the state. It shows that it is now time to swing the pendulum back towards liberty rather than away from it, and to take back control of our own lives.

The draft Bill is a threat to freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion. The Institute of Public Affairs calls on the committee to recommend the outright rejection of this dangerous draft Bill.

Simon, along with Chris Berg, made a formal written submission to the Senate committee which goes in to much more detail about the problems with the draft legislation. That submission can be found on the IPA’s website. I read the whole thing last night and, although it is too long to re-publish here, I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in being able to have an opinion.

It was also interesting to see the Australian Human Rights Commission come down on the side of restricting speech. Apparently freedom of speech is not as important to them as the supposed right to not be offended or insulted. You have to listen carefully, but the Commission’s President Gillian Triggs admitted it on Weekend Sunrise when she noted that it is only public opinion which is preventing her from getting her way at this time.

My sincere thanks to the IPA for all of their hard work.


February 27th, 2013 at 03:06pm

Some valuable thoughts for Canberrans in the long lead-up to the federal election

Today I intend to present you with some interesting information put together by people other than myself, which I have come across in recent days.

First up today, a video from John Moulis examining the current state of the federal election in the ACT’s electorates. John makes the very important point that, now that the Liberal Party’s preselections are completed, it is important that the Party gets behind the candidates so as to maximise their chances of winning seats and, even more importantly, ensuring that the Greens do not win a seat.

Without wanting to summarise everything John talks about, he makes the interesting point that regardless of what people might think of the Liberal Party, as they are almost certain to form government and probably hold it for multiple terms, Canberra would be best served by having at least one Liberal senator and at least one Liberal MP, so that Canberrans have direct representation in the government.

I found the video to be very interesting and to make some very important points. I hope you’ll take the few minutes to watch it.


February 27th, 2013 at 06:34am


February 2013

Posts by Month

Posts by Category


Blix Theme by Sebastian Schmieg and modified for Samuel's Blog by Samuel Gordon-Stewart.
Printing CSS with the help of Martin Pot's guide to Web Page Printability With CSS.
Icons by Kevin Potts.
Powered by WordPress.
Log in