Patheos

BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Patheos

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

The Secular Spectrum

Defending Free Speech with Neurobabble

Last updated on: October 10, 2017 at 8:06 am   by Shem the Penman

Defending Free Speech with Neurobabble 2017-10-10T08:06:57-05:00 Shem the Penman

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

This is your brain on right-wing propaganda

This is your brain on right-wing propaganda

If you can’t fight speech codes with logic and reason, hit ’em with science-words!

In the right wing’s ongoing crusade against academia, speech codes have become the latest battlefield. Universities have come under fire for imposing rules about appropriate speech designed to create a more welcoming and respectful atmosphere on campuses for people who’ve been victims of oppression or violence. Free speech absolutists say this is an unconscionable infringement of the “free exchange of ideas,” but so far universities have been able to defend speech codes as protecting people from victimization.

Inventing an Oppressed Minority

Enter Geoffrey Miller, a psychology professor and author, who claims that speech codes themselves victimize and oppress. Who do they oppress, pray tell? According to Miller, “people with unusual brains and minds.”

In Quillette magazine (“A platform for free thought”) Miller makes “The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech,” essentially saying that attempts to define and enforce appropriate speech “impose impossible expectations on the social sensitivity, cultural awareness, verbal precision, and self-control of many neurodiverse people.” He says that many geniuses throughout history have been eccentrics, or even had mental disorders. Their ability to think outside the box went hand in hand with an inability to gauge the propriety of their speech or behavior.

This is an original and cogent approach to the matter of free speech, designed to mirror the very motivations for advocating speech codes in the first place. Surely campus speech activists wouldn’t want to impose rules that themselves discriminate against a marginalized minority, would they? If the aim is to create an environment that fosters diversity, nurtures and protects, what about protecting people on the autistic spectrum and neurodiverse “systematizers”?

What’s Really In the Trojan Horse

Scratch a little below the surface of Miller’s up-with-everybody rhetoric, though, and you find the cynical right-wing attitudes that have traditionally been behind attacks on campus speech codes:

The ways that speech codes discriminate against systematizers is exacerbated by their vagueness, overbreadth, unsystematic structure, double standards, and logical inconsistencies – which drive systematizers nuts. For example, most speech codes prohibit any insults based on a person’s sex, race, religion, or political attitudes. But Aspy students often notice that these codes are applied very selectively: it’s OK to insult ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘patriarchy’, but not to question the ‘wage gap’ or ‘rape culture’; it’s OK to insult ‘white privilege’ and the ‘Alt-Right’ but not affirmative action or ‘Black Lives Matter’; it’s OK to insult pro-life Catholics but not pro-sharia Muslims. The concept of ‘unwelcome’ jokes or ‘unwelcome’ sexual comments seems like a time-travel paradox to Aspy people – how can you judge what speech act is ‘unwelcome’ until after you get the feedback about whether it was welcome? Even worse, most campus speech codes are associated with social justice theories of gender feminism, critical race theory, and social constructivism, which reject the best-established scientific findings about sex differences, race differences, and behavior genetics. Requiring Aspy academics to buy into speech codes based on blatant falsehoods violates their deepest systematizer values of logic, rationality, and realism. [Emphasis added]

Is it just me, or does this look like a smokescreen? Is the hand-wringing over neurodiversity just an attempt to use science-words to characterize campus speech codes as counter-productive by appealing to people’s sympathy for the plight of victims rather than concern for their own Constitutional rights?

critical thinking

Culture

Free speech

critical thinking

pseudoscience

rationality

Previous Post



October 5, 2017

The Google Memo and Bro Science

Next Post



October 12, 2017 Tyson's Blunder: All Caps SCIENCE and Critical Thinking


Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Ableism Activism Addiction and Recovery Agnosticism Anti-intellectualism Arts Atheism Beauty Catholicism Charles Darwin Children China Christianity Church/State separation churchgoing communication compassionate humanism Creationism critical thinking Culture death disaster response doubt education Egypt Entertainment Environment ethics evolution Existence of God Exploration fear Foundation Beyond Belief Free speech God Health History Human rights humanism identity India Interfaith Islam labels Language LGBT Love Meaning Media Medicine Middle East misconceptions mixed belief marriage Moral argument Morality Myths Near-Death Experience Nonreligious parenting Parody Persecution complex Philosophy Poetry Politics prayer Psychology Rationality Religion religious atheists Religious privilege Republican Party Satire Schools science secular parenting Spirituality The Unpigeonholeables Uncategorized United Kingdom Wonder

Select a Month March 2021 August 2020 March 2020 January 2020 September 2019 July 2019 June 2019 April 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 June 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014


Follow Us!

Follow Us on Facebook



TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which prophet spoke God's judgment against Edom?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Obadiah Joel Jonah Ezekiel

Related posts from The Secular Spectrum

Nonreligious

Yasir Qadhi's Elitist Ruse to Conceal the Obscure...

The Secular Spectrum

Nonreligious

Despite "Pro-Life" Claims, Stem Cell Therapy Has Very...

The Secular Spectrum

Nonreligious

How Religion Can Impact Mental Health in Good...

The Secular Spectrum

Nonreligious

On Cognitive Dissonance and the Thought Patterns Behind...

The Secular Spectrum

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious

Dethroning Jesus and Enthroning Yourself

Jesus Never Asked to Be Worshipped. He Asked to Be Understood. Christianity...

Why Most Christians are Really Paulians and Jobians

I Don't Care, But It Matters Let's get this out of the...

Essential Tips to Successfully Navigate the Selling Process

Selling a house can feel overwhelming, but it doesn’t have to be....

To Make Remote Work Effective, Think About Others

The COVID-19 pandemic forced many companies to rapidly transition to remote work....

Flexibility Is Key to Solving Problems of Tomorrow

The world of work is undergoing a dramatic transformation. The COVID-19 pandemic...

view all Nonreligious blogs

Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube