Readers Respond On Censorship
By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
In the October 27 edition of this column I invited our readers to respond to what I called an apparent case of “cognitive dissonance” on our side of the culture wars: the manner in which most conservative Catholics, at one and the same time, express their disagreement with college leftists who shout down opposing points of view in the name of political correctness, while also protesting performances of The Vagina Monologues and campus appearances by pro-abortion speakers.
I asked in the column in question, “Can’t it be said that the champions of modern political correctness are calling for universities to maintain standards of decency? That they are taking a stand against moral relativism in defense of what they perceive as truth? Their standards of decency and truth may not be ours, but they are standards.”
My point, at the risk of oversimplifying, is that conservatives and traditionalists seem to be opposed to censorship by secular leftists, but applaud it when applied to defend traditional values. How does this line get drawn? Several readers have responded to the invitation to help us see this issue in the proper light.
The first correspondent was G.Y., a physician from Kansas. He writes, “The solution to your dilemma is really quite simple. We need but look at the origins of the ‘standards of decency’ promulgated by each side on this issue. Even Satan has his own standards, so that having some sort of standards is no defense of their validity. Those who espouse what is known as ‘political correctness’ have cobbled together their own ‘standards of decency’ according to their own ‘lights’ and those of other men and women who think like them.
“On the contrary, those who oppose political correctness and performances of The Vagina Monologues and pro-abortion speakers on Catholic campuses are not the creators of the standards of decency that they apply. Rather, their standards come from God and His Church. Those who espouse such standards are thus not just speaking for themselves and their personal opinions but for God and His teachings. That is the solution to your apparent dilemma.”
Another correspondent, S.M. sees the issue in a similar manner. He writes, “The ‘cognitive dissonance’ you describe arises if one follows an external authority such as the state or an internal authority, self-defined, as his highest measure of right and wrong. But one cannot find truth under an authority of human origin, internal or external. It is as fluid as the next idea, originating from the next person. This is the source of the inconsistency, or what you describe as ‘cognitive dissonance.’ Political correctness and the need for safe spaces are prime examples of censorship holding to a false authority. Private opinions are upheld as universal truth. But humans do not define on their own what is true and what is not.”
S.M. calls for us to look instead “to God as the external authority, the measure of right and wrong. One seeks truth under that authority by adhering to that which is decreed to be right, while rejecting that which is decreed to be wrong. Seeking truth, which is the true purpose of an education, leads one to weigh all arguments on their own merits, but in the end to reject all that is wrong. That rejection is an act of charity toward oneself and toward society.
“The protest by campus conservatives and those with traditional values against the — unchallenged and uncorrected — appearance on campus of those who attack our Catholic beliefs and immoral presentations like The Vagina Monologues is a call to reject that which is wrong. It is a call to charity, not censorship. Those adhering to a human or their internal authority have simply rejected God and all His decrees.”
J.M. anticipates the objection of those who will argue that what he is calling for is an imposition of our religious beliefs upon those who disagree with us. “Yes,” he writes, “God’s authority is our religious faith. But keep in mind that nonbelievers who champion modern political correctness are also — silently and without openly conceding the point — operating under an alternate religion with precepts that are never required to be explained. They are just assumed to be valid. Those who disagree with them are shouted down, while proponents of the politically correct ‘truths’ are granted ‘safe spaces’ on campus.
“Political correctness ultimately requires a series of beliefs that have become the precepts of a church-like but secular institution. This worship has its own commandments and saints. The first commandment is that no sexual act between consenting adults is wrong. Two corollary imperatives are that whatever contributes to consenting sexual acts is an absolute good, and that anything interfering, or threatening to interfere, with consenting sexual acts is ipso facto wrong.”
G.Y. and J.M. offer words of wisdom. Still, I fear that what they say will not close this question, at least in a manner that will carry much weight in a modern campus discussion. I understand that there is little chance to win over the secular leftists who are committed to promoting their agenda in the name of political correctness. Their minds are closed.
But what of the young people on campus who are trying to work their way through this thicket? My suspicion is that they will be vulnerable to the charge that the leftists will make against J.M. and G.Y., which is that they label censorship that they agree with not as censorship, but as an act of charity, because they have “God on their side.” A clever liberal professor will counter that proposition by trotting out passages from Voltaire or Dostoyevsky’s The Grand Inquisitor to mock the contention that religious authorities have the right to deny human freedom in the name of God’s will.
We will continue this discussion in next week’s edition of First Teachers, as other readers weigh in with their view of the matter.
+ + +
Readers are invited to submit comments and questions about this and other educational issues. The e-mail address for First Teachers is fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net, and the mailing address is P.O. Box 15, Wallingford, CT 06492.
