Pinker on Ideological Intolerance

Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker was interviewed by Adam Rubenstein of the Weekly Standard recently and had some very interesting things to say on a couple of topics. The interview touches on Pinker's views on identity politics, ideological intolerance in the modern university, humanism and a few others.

I commented on his thoughts on identity politics here and would like today to consider what he has to say about the alarming level of ideological intolerance in our contemporary schools of higher learning.

Here is the exchange between Rubenstein and Pinker on intolerance:

Adam Rubenstein: There is, as you recognize a “liberal tilt” in academia. And you write about it: “Non-leftist speakers are frequently disinvited after protests or drowned out by jeering mobs,” and “anyone who disagrees with the assumption that racism is the cause of all problems is called a racist.” How high are the stakes in universities? Should we worry?

Steven Pinker: Yes, for three reasons. One is that scholars can’t hope to understand the world (particularly the social world) if some hypotheses are given a free pass and others are unmentionable. As John Stuart Mill noted, “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.”

In The Blank Slate I argued that leftist politics had distorted the study of human nature, including sex, violence, gender, childrearing, personality, and intelligence.

The second is that people who suddenly discover forbidden facts outside the crucible of reasoned debate (which is what universities should be) can take them to dangerous conclusions, such as that differences between the sexes imply that we should discriminate against women (this kind of fallacy has fueled the alt-right movement).

The third problem is that illiberal antics of the hard left are discrediting the rest of academia, including the large swaths of moderates and open-minded scholars who keep their politics out of their research. (Despite the highly publicized follies of academia, it’s still a more disinterested forum than alternatives like the Twittersphere, Congress, or ideologically branded think tanks.)

In particular, many right-wingers tell each other that the near-consensus among scientists on human-caused climate change is a conspiracy among politically correct academics who are committed to a government takeover of the economy. This is sheer nonsense, but it can gain traction when the noisiest voices in the academy are the repressive fanatics.

Pinker could've mentioned a fourth problem: When students censor speech, when they shout down speakers or threaten violence, they're sending the message that the fundamental liberties of democracy are held in contempt by the very people and institutions which should understand and value them most.

This attitude eventually trickles down to the masses and accustoms them to thinking that the basic assumptions and values of a free society - open-mindedness, the free exchange of ideas, the willingness to pursue the truth even if it undermines or contradicts one's own preferences and prejudices - are obsolete. It accustoms the "average" citizen to the notion that these democratic virtues are nowadays just anachronisms out of place in the modern world.

When masses of people begin taking it for granted, however, that unwanted speech and ideas should, as a matter of course, be suppressed, tyranny, of either the left or the right, is lurking around the corner.

It's literally frightening to witness how quickly and glibly the values that undergird our liberties are being discarded by so many of tomorrow's leaders.