Ron Radosh suggests that the use of liberating tolerance might be too subtle for the Internal Revenue Service.
If you criticize Obama Care, by Marcuse’s logic, you are what the Soviets called “an enemy of the people,” and the full power of government should be put into place to stop you. And were he still with us, he would be penning an op-ed praising the IRS for its clever action in denying conservative groups non-profit status.

Who would make that judgment? Perhaps it would be the people’s courts, the revolutionary assemblies, or the left-wing professoriate, which is acting on behalf of the people before they realize their duty to develop revolutionary consciousness.

Let me end on a serious note. The IRS personnel are probably not smart enough to read or even know about Herbert Marcuse. But they have acted in a way he would have been proud of, having obtained an understanding of how to act against conservatives all on their own. And, it seems, they have an unknowing ally who lives in the executive mansion on Pennsylvania Avenue.
It strikes me as rash to suggest what position a mid-twentieth century intellectual might take on a contemporary policy issue, particularly a mid-twentieth century intellectual who late in life had to deal with the pushback his epigones engendered.

I also suspect that the practitioners of liberating tolerance have more than an unknowing ally in the Executive Mansion.
[T]he Departments of Justice and Education have mandated a breathtakingly broad definition of sexual harassment that makes virtually every student in the United States a harasser while ignoring the First Amendment. The mandate applies to every college receiving federal funding—virtually every American institution of higher education nationwide, public or private.

The letter states that "sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as 'any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature'" including "verbal conduct" (that is, speech). It then explicitly states that allegedly harassing expression need not even be offensive to an "objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation"—if the listener takes offense to sexually related speech for any reason, no matter how irrationally or unreasonably, the speaker may be punished.
Apparently the efforts of Student Affairs to develop a revolutionary consciousness in their students haven't been good enough.

The way to demonstrate the folly of this rule, though, is to comply with it.  Rather than make a federal case out of the law, overwhelm the enforcers in the administration with complaints.  There's a good list of complaints to consider right at the post commenting on the policy.

No comments: