E-Pluribus | Apr. 28, 2021
Here is a round up of the latest and best writing and musings on the rise of illiberalism in the public discourse:
Walter Russell Mead: A Liberalish New World Order
As Joe Biden’s presidency gets off the ground, the world continues a reordering that is now a few decades old. China and Russia continue to jockey for position, Europe’s internal struggles are still playing out, and rising nations such as India are looking for greater influence as well. At the Wall Street Journal, Walter Russell Mead evaluates the chances liberalism has of shaping the new order while recognizing that without a strong West, the world may be left with a choice between increasing conflict and decreasing freedom.
Can the liberal West impose a global order founded on liberal principles that dictators and many populist leaders reject? If not, and global order is the only way to address existential problems, does that mean that the U.S. must play down democratic values and human rights to save the human race? Even as Mr. Biden condemned the Ottoman murders of the Armenians in 1915, will he have to accept Chinese assault on the Uighurs to save the planet?
While international interdependence makes some kind of world order inevitable, the degree to which that order is liberal depends on the geopolitical state of the world. A weak America (and a weak Europe and Japan) will have to accept a greater degree of Chinese, Russian and general illiberal influence in the design and operation of international institutions. A stronger and more successful West will have more scope to design the international order in accordance with its values.
Read it all here.
Lindsay Ellis: This Trustee Was Censured by His Board. Now the Supreme Court Will Weigh In.
A case before the Supreme Court showcases some of the competing interests at stake in public institutions and will test the limits of free speech by government officials and the actions governments may take against officials for their speech.
The case centers around David B. Wilson, a member of the Houston Community College Board of Trustees between 2014 and 2019. Board members voted to censure him in 2018. At that point, Wilson had filed several lawsuits against the college, and he had also backed robocalls protesting college operations in Qatar and arranged a private investigation into whether a board colleague lived in her district. The board’s chair at the time, Carolyn Evans-Shabazz, called his conduct “inappropriate” and “reprehensible.” As part of the censure’s sanctions, Wilson would be unable to hold board leadership positions or get reimbursed for board travel. He also would need additional approval for community-affairs spending.
To Wilson, the vote was a violation of his First Amendment rights. He was punished, he argued, for speaking out on issues of public concern, and it caused him mental anguish.
Individual trustees were welcome to disagree with his constitutionally protected speech, Wilson told The Chronicle on Monday. But a censure from a government body like the board over a matter of speech is overstepping, he said.
A district court disagreed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with Wilson. Elected officials should speak out on matters of public concern, that body wrote.
The college’s lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court for further review. A censure is a “quintessential form of government speech,” they wrote in an appeal, and the First Amendment does not bar someone from criticism. The appellate court’s decision “implausibly holds that elected officials suffer a constitutional injury when they are criticized for their performance in office,” they wrote. (A lawyer for the college did not respond to an email seeking comment.)
Read all about it here.
Deborah J. La Fetra: Free Speech in Battle with Snitch Culture before the Courts
More SCOTUS news: How and when the First Amendment applies to children in school settings, particularly high school and below, has been a source of discussion and controversy for years. There is a balance between adults being in charge and keeping order versus heavy-handed rules and tactics that violate basic rights. Deborah J. La Fetra of the Pacific Legal Foundation argues that a case currently before the Supreme Court should draw some clear lines about how far school districts can go in regulating private speech of the children in their care.
Students should not be subject to constant monitoring of their thoughts and expression by school administrators or staff. Our culture is currently experiencing a dangerous trend wherein individuals are punished for their speech on social-media platforms — or elsewhere — with the intent and effect of stifling ideas. This is reflected by the disturbing number of student-speech cases that arise when one student anonymously informs a school staff member about speech that the informant found offensive — but which causes no disruption to the learning environment.
Petty disagreements or sniping among teen or tween students, whether they share classes or activities or are teammates, is utterly routine and frequently amounts to crass or vulgar foolishness. Yet students increasingly know that they can bring down their school’s wrath on any classmate who has spoken, at any time and in any place, in a way that some may deem offensive. Empowering school administrators to punish students for such speech creates an incentive for students, parents, and staff to engage in informant-style behavior that is anathema to American values.
[…]
Contrary to Americans’ traditional disdain of snitchers, schools and universities increasingly encourage them. Consider that in the past year, many colleges have invited students to rat out their classmates — anonymously — for congregating off campus in violation of strict pandemic rules. High-school students are encouraged to anonymously report tips about violence, threats, or bullying. In an era when many students equate simple speech with violence, the school is making the entire student body into prototypically unctuous hall monitors who generate self-esteem and approval from elders by exercising petty power over peers.
Read it all here at National Review.
Around Twitter
“Who is acceptable to publish” is a rather remarkable line in the context of ideology and politics:
The Indian government is censoring social media over its handling of the COVID pandemic:
Ron Coleman on corporate censorship:
The ACLU and David French find themselves on the same side in the cheerleader case referenced above:
And more on the cheerleader case from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education:
