Chapter 5: Witch Hunts
“We are witnessing on campus exemplifies a situation long studied by sociologists in which a community becomes obsessed with religious or ideological purity and believes it needs to find and punish enemies within its own ranks in order to hold itself together.”
Witch Hunt History:
-from the fifteenth through the seventeenth century, Europe experienced multiple waves of witch hunts driven primarily by religious wars, conflicts in the wake of the Reformation, and also by fears brought on by recurring plague outbreaks
-tens of thousands of innocent people were put to death often after being “put to the question” meaning being tortured
-the most famous witch hunts occurred in Salem, massachusetts in 1692
-2 young girls began to suffer from fits and tremors which their elders attributed to witchcraft
-dozens of people claimed that they were tormented by witches or that their animals had been bewitched
-legal action was taken against 144 people (38 being men) who were accused of practicing witchcraft
-19 were executed by hanging
-one was crushed by heavy stones
Emile Durkheim:
-20th century French sociologist
-explained this behavior was in response to a group experiencing either a sense of threat from outside, or division and loss of cohesion within
-social entities that have a chronic need to enhance their internal cohesion and their shared sense of moral order
-to be part of the collective we all have the capacity to transition, temporarily, to a higher collective plane because the level is “sacred”
-we have access to a set of emotions that we experience only when we are part of the collective
***feelings like “collective effervescence,” described as social “electricity” generated when a group gathers and achieves a state of union
-rituals in which people sing or dance together or chant in unison are particularly powerful
***the Durkheimian approach is particularly helpful when applied to sudden outbreaks of moralistic violence that are mystifying to outsiders
The Chinese Cultural Revolution of 1966:
-in 1978, sociologist Albert Bergesen used the Durkheimian approach to illuminate the madness that erupted in Beijing in May 1966
-Mao Zedong began warning about the rising threat of infiltration by pro-capitalist enemies
-Zealous college students responded by forming the Red Guards to find and punish enemies of the revolution
-anyone who was successful or accomplished was suspect so many professors, intellectuals, and campus administrators were imprisoned or murdered
Among the many cruel features of the Cultural Revolution were the “struggle sessions”
“Those accused of ideological impurity were surrounded by their accusers, taunted, humiliated, and sometimes beaten as they confessed their crimes, offered abject apologies, and vowed to do better.”
-students even turned in their own teachers
-tens of millions were persecuted, and hundreds of thousands were murdered
How could such an orgy of self-destruction have happened?
-Bergesen notes that there are three features common to most political witch hunts
1: They arise very quickly
-witch hunts seem to appear in dramatic outbursts; they are not a regular feature of social life
-a community seems to suddenly find itself infested with all sorts of subversive elements which pose a threat to the collectivity as a whole
-a community becomes intensely mobilized to rid itself of internal enemies
2: Crimes against the collective
“The various charges that appear during one of these witch-hunts involve accusations of crimes committed against the nation as a corporate whole. It is the whole of collective existence that is at stake; it is The Nation, The People, The Revolution, or The State which is being undermined and subverted.”
3: Charges are often trivial or fabricated
“These crimes and deviations seem to involve the most petty and insignificant behavioral acts which are somehow understood as crimes against the nation as a whole. In fact, one of the principal reasons we term these events ‘witch-hunts’ is that innocent people are so often involved and falsely accused.”
Added:
4-Fear of defending the accused:
-public accusation is made by many friends and bystanders know that the victim is innocent, but they are afraid of saying anything
-anyone who comes to the defense of the accused obstructing the enactment of of a collective ritual
-siding with the accused to truly an offense against the group, and it will be treated as such
-if passions or fears are intense enough, people will even testify against their friends and family members
Bergesen’s Durkheimian:
-analysis of the Cultural Revolution helps explain the dramatic events that have been happening on campus since 2015
-most notably in that the Red Guards were supported by a totalitarian dictator who encouraged them to use violence
-American college students have been self-organizing and almost entirely nonviolent
But then a transformation
-movements were initiated by idealistic student fighting for what seemed to them a noble ideal = remaking of society along egalitarian lines
-then movements began with “dramatic outbursts"
-what followed was intense and rapid mobilization on college campuses across the country
-then the large reactions often launched in response to small acts
Ex. the Halloween costumes at Yale
-is is hard to comprehend how these two emails could have triggered mass movements demanding that the two women be denounced and fired
-Bergesen’s approach also can be applied to the violence at Middlebury College
-the video of the main shout-down show students changing, singing, and at times swaying in unison to prevent the speaker from speaking
-this is a striking demonstration of Durkheim’’s “collective effervescence” building up a charge of social electricity that prepares the group for action
-it is called a witch hung when we believe that the targets of the attacks are innocent
***Why did college students direct so much of their passion and effort toward changing their universities and to finding enemies within their own communities?
***Why were protests in the strongest and most progressive parts of the United States New England and East Coast)?
-these schools were supposed to be the most devoted to enacting progressive and inclusive social policies
-professors use the Durkheimian framework as well
-they use open letters of denunciation
-they rally other professors to condemn fellow professors
-they demand that an academic article be retracted (rather than just rebutting it)
A Provocative Idea:
2017: conflicts
-an article entitled, “In Defense of Transracialism” wrote about how people celebrated Citlyn Jenner’s gender transition from a man to a woman was written by Rebecca Tuvel
But
-there was much “ridicule and condemnation” when former chapter of the NAACP, a civil rights organization, was not black, but a white woman who claimed that the “identified as black”
-Tuvel noted that her concern was “with the arguments for and against transracialism”
-she argued that while society is hostile to transracialism and more open to transgenderism, the two kinds of identity transformation raise many raise many of the same considerations
-she stated she is a strong advocate of transgender rights and that she was “not suggesting that race and sex are equivalent"
-her research “lies at the intersection of feminist philosophy, philosophy of race and animal ethics”
-she considers the ways in which the oppression of “animals, women and racially subordinated groups” overlap to “maintain erroneous and harmful conceptions of humanity”
***today’s culture of safetyism, intent no longer matters
-just about anything can be perceived as having a harmful–even violent–impact vulnerable groups
“Anything that can be construed as an attack on a group can serve as an opportunity for collective punishment and the enhancement of group solidarity."
-Tuvel’s article generated an uproar, so an open letter was published demanding that the article be retracted-not rebutted but retracted
-the signers of the letter were not asking for a chance to respond and correct her alleged mistakes
-they demanded that the article vanish from the scholarly record
-they contended that the “continued availability” of the article caused “harm” to women of color and the transgender community
-another letter asserted that “many harms” were “committed by the article publishing”
-the alleged harm was not described in the letter
-by claiming that the letter “is not an exhaustive summary of the many harms caused by the Tuvel article
-critics also called the article “transphobic, violent, and an expression of “all that is wrong with white feminism”
-a professor at the University of Tennessee posted that the article was “discursive transmisogynistic violence”
-the professor asserted that Tuvel “enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her essay”
-she “deadnames a trans woman” (Tuvel had mentioned Jenner’s former male, or “dead,” name, was Bruce_
-she used the term “transgenderism” and she talks about “biological sex, and she “uses phrases like ‘male genitalia"
***the complaints about Tuvel did not refer to her arguments, but her word choice
-the arguments for the retraction was that Tuvel used “vocabulary and frameworks not recognized. Accepted, or adopted by the conventions of the relevant subfields
-Tuvel is accused of “crimes against the [group] as a whole
-Jesse Singal, a left-leaning social science journalist disagreed with the attacks against Tuvel
-he wrote a response stating that the attacks mischaracterizes the work of one of their colleagues
“It is really strange, disturbing instance of mass groupthink, perhaps fueled by the dynamics of online shaming and piling-on”
***Tuvel’s article fits well into a Durkheimian framework
“Out of nowhere an eruption of mass groupthink in which trivial things (such as using the phrase ‘male genitalia’) are taken as grave attacks on a vulnerable community.”
-these attacks recruits hundreds of people to publicly sign their names an d collectively point their fingers at the accused witch
-Jesse Singal wrote an essay titled, “This is What a Modern-Day Witch Hunt Looks like”
-Tuvel’s article fits in with the fourth criterion of a witch hunt: fear of defending the accused
“As one academic wrote to me in a private message, “sorry I’m not saying this publicly (I have no interest in battling the mean girls on Facebook) but for what it’s worth it’s totally obvious to me that you haven’t been committing acts of violence against marginalized scholars.”
–some scholars went beyond cowardice, privately supporting Tuvel while publicly attacking her
***Why did so many scholars express one sentiment behind closed doors and another out in the open? Why were so many others afraid to say anything publicly?
Retraction Is the Rebuttal:
-2 law professors wrote an opinion piece that caused a firestorm of attacks, so what was the statement:
“All cultures are not equal. Or at least they are not equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy.”
-this line is provocative because it violates a widespread taboo in the academic world
“One is not supposed to say that a dominant culture is superior to a nondominant one in any way.”
-anthropologists generally agree that cultures and subcultures instill different goals, skills, and virtues in their members
-it cannot be possibly true that all cultures prepare children equally well for success in all other cultures
-graduate students and alumni published a statement condemning the essay and its authors for exemplifying the “malignant logic of hetero-patriarchal, class-based, white supremacy
-the open letter issued a strong call for solidarity am ong “all members of the university community who claim to fight systemic inequality”
-it also demanded the president of the university to confront the racism
Solidarity or Diversity:
-solidarity is great for a group that needs to work in unison or march into battle
-solidarity engenders trust, teamwork, and mutual aid
-But, it can also foster groupthink, orthodoxy, and paralyzing fear of challenging the collective
-solidarity can interfere with a group’s efforts to find the truth, and the search for truth can interfere with a group’s solidarity
-The Greek historian Thucydides saw this principle in action over two thousand years ago
-he had written about a time of wars and revolutions in fifth century BCE
-he noted that “the ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action.”
-this is why viewpoint diversity is so essential in any group of scholars
-each professor, like all human beings, are flawed thinkers with a strong preference for believing that his or her own ideas are right
***each scholar suffers from the confirmation bias–the tendency to search vigorously for evidence that confirms what one already believes
Institutionalized disconfirmation:
-the institution guarantees that every statement offered as a research finding–and every peer-reviewed article—has survived a process of challenge and vetting
-that is no guarantee that it is true
-it is a reason to think that the statement is likely to be more reliable than alternative statements made by partisan think tanks like corporate marketers or an opinionated uncle
-universities and groups of scholars claim some authority to be arbiters of factual questions
Ex. whether social programs designed to help poor children close achievement gaps with wealthier kids actually work
Confirmation bias:
-What if a university or academic field or team all shared the same confirmation bias?
-the disconfirmation process would break down
-it is no surprise that professors lean left
Examples:
-left-wing politics describes people who crave new ideas and experiences and who tend to be interested in changing traditional arrangements
-military, law enforcement tend to learn right
-social conservatives are more likely to show up on time, like things orderly, predictable, and value traditional arrangements
-in a free society, it will simply never be the case that every occupation is evenly balanced, politically, or in the case of left leaning professors
-this is not a problem as long as there are enough professors who don’t lean left to guarantee institutionalized disconfirmation
-in 1990’s, right and left leaning professors were two to one (2 left leaning, 1 right leaning), but they began to retire
-2011, the baby boomer generation, the ratio was 5 left leaning professors to 1 right leaning professor
-this generation had more diversity by race and gender, but less diverse in their politics
-influenced by the great wave of social protests in the 1960s
-many went into the social sciences and education in order to continue to fight for social justice and progressive social causes
-in academic psychology the ratio is 17 to 1 in 2016
-ratios in core fields like humanities and social sciences it is 10 to 1
-the only field that is known for its political diversity is in economics which is steady at 4 to 1
***loss of political diversity among professors that deal with politicized content, can undermine the quality and rigor of scholarly research
-if a field lacks political diversity it generally only confirms their shared narrative
-the loss of political diversity among the faculty has negative consequences for students
-one problem is that college students have little or no exposure to professors from half the political spectrum
-students graduate with an inaccurate understanding of conservatives, politics, and much of the United States
Example: Harvard’s motto: Veritas (Latin for “truth)
-students called on the administration to give them more political diversity
“The pursuit of “Veritas” which undergirds our intellectual life demands not only each member of our community be able to debate politics freely, but also that we attend to the multitude of political views that exist in our nation. Stifling this discussion on campus is a disservice to our peers in the campus political minority and to our own educational growth.”
-loss of the viewpoint diversity among the faculty means that what students learn about politically controversial topics will often be “left shifted” from the truth
-students in politically homogeneous departments will be exposed to books and research studies drawn from the left half of the range
-this will lead to them coming down to the “left” of the truth on average
”Both left-leaning and right-leaning can be correct on views, so students will get closer to the truth if they are exposed to debates among credentialed scholars who approach difficult problems from differing perspectives.”
-today, faculty are becoming more politically homogeneous, so are the students
-1980’s -1990’s 20% of incoming freshman identified as conservative, half identified as moderates
-2000’s saw a rise of progressive (self described “liberals”) by 30% and continues to increase
“Viewpoint diversity is necessary for the development of critical thinking, while viewpoint homogeneity (left or right) leaves a community vulnerable to groupthink and orthodoxy.”
-faculty and students have been losing moderates and gaining progressives since the 1990s
-the shift among students has accelerated since 2012
-reason for the changes in the culture and social dynamics of universities after 2012
Durkheimian problem:
-campuses have high levels of political homogeneity
-campuses take on properties of a collective entity that are antithetical to the normal aims of a university
-collective entity mobilized for action is more likely to enforce political orthodoxy
-the collective is less likely to tolerate challenges to its key ideological beliefs
-politically homogeneous communities are more susceptible to witch hunts, particularly when they feel threatened from outside
Welcome to Evergreen State College:
-in 2011, changed its mission statement:
“Evergreen supports and benefits from local and global commitment to social justice, diversity, environmental stewardship and service in the public interest.”
-in May 2017, Evergreen slipped into a state of anarchy and must be seen with the help of Durkheim
Example:
-campus tensions had already been rising on March 15th
-Bret Weinstein, a politically progressive biology professor, emailed the faculty to express concern about the plans for that year’s “Day of Absence"
-faculty and students of color had been spending one day off campus which had been a tradition since the 1970s in order to make their absence, importance, and contributions to be noticed
-in 2017, the organizers decided to make a change so instead of the day being an opportunity for people of color to voluntarily absent themselves, this year, white students and faculty were asked to stay away from campus
-notice the intent (for people of color = we miss you and all you offer our campus; compared to your are white = stay away from the campus as you are not wanted on campus
“There is a huge difference between a group or coalition deciding to volunteer to absent themselves from a shared space in order to highlight their viral and underappreciated roles and encouraging another group to go away. One’s right to speak–or to be must never be based on skin color.” Professor Weinstein
-Weinstein pointed out that if a white student decided to stay on campus would be looked at negatively, as unsupportive of the structure of the Day of Absence, so unsupportive of people of color and the goals of the event
-Weinstein had pointed out concerns earlier about the college president, administrators, and select faculty committed to a campuswide “equity” agenda, including a proposed policy that would require all new employees to have an “equity” justification
-the president of Evergreen, began using the phrase “education solidarity-inclusion” in his emails and memos and mailings
-he and his “equity council” held various solidarity-building exercises
Ex. the exercise: faculty publicly pressured to get into an imaginary canoe, in which the faculty and administration then symbolically journeyed toward equity together to the sounds of crashing waves and a Native American drumbeat
***these rituals and talk of campuswide “solidarity” makes sense from a Durkheimian perspective as they are ways to prepare a community for collective action
-May 23rd, instance of campus unrest began turning on professor Weinstein
-multiethnic group of angry students marked into Weinstein’s classroom door, cornered him in the hallway, and berated him
-students swore at him, calling him a “piece of shit” and telling him to “get the fuck out”
-they claimed that he made racist statements in his email
-they demanded that he not only apologize but also resign
-Weinstein disagreed with their assessment of his email as “harmful” and “racist”
-Weinstein refused to apologize
-he did try to engage students in discussions which he called “dialectic”
-the response was not positive
“We don’t care what terms you want to speak on ….we are not speaking on terms of white privilege.”
-tensions mounted to the point that his students were concerned about his safety, so they called the police
-the protestors prevented the police from reaching him
***protestors, claiming to be “fearful for their lives” marched on to the administration building to confront the president outside his office
-videos show the protestors saying, “fuck you, Geoarge, we don’t want to hear a Goddam thing you have to say….You shut the fuck up.”
-the president agreed to meet with protestors along with the staff and administrators who supported them to hold the errant professor Weinstein as in the wrong
“They’re going to say some things we don’t like, and our job is to bring them all in or get ‘em out. And what I hear us stating that we are working toward is: bring ‘em in, train ‘em, and if they don’t get it, sanction ‘em.”
***in other words put the through the reeducation program
-this from a president of the college who is bound by the First Amendment to protect academic freedom, proposing to fire or punish professors who do not accept the teachings of a mandatory political reeducation program
-protestors turned on the campus police chief Stacy Brown (who had been part of protecting Weinstein from the aggressive crowd)
-they shouted expletives and slurs at her
-protesters were assigned to follow her around where she ended up in a larger crowd of protesters
-the protesters controlled the exits
-the protesters had mace and planned to prevent Weinstein from leaving the building, his students texted him to warn him
-video of that meeting is startling
-student protesters can be heard insisting Weinstein be fired in order to prevent him from what one white protester later described as “spreading this problematic rhetoric”
***students of color who spoke supportively of Weinstein or even asked to hear from people not in the protesters cam’ were shouted down and called “race traitors”
-white students who were not protesting were told to stand in the back and were not allowed to speak
-students repeatedly and publicly ridiculed the college president
-they even berated him for smiling
-they yelled at him to put down his hands making fun of his hand movements
-the president immediately put his hand behind his back to laughter and applause (the one who wanted stand with “equity” “solidarity” was now on the opposite end of their rage
“Decolonizing the space” students announced as Bridges announced, “My hands are down.”
The next day:
-potesters searched cars looking for Weinstein
-they interrupted a faculty meeting
“Didn’t you educate us on how to do shit like this?”
-student protesters barricaded the main entrance to the administration building
-they occupied the leadership building that held the president of the college
****the irony: the protesters presented their demands: mandatory bias training for faculty, and permission for protesters to not turn in their homework on time
-there was enough protesters to prevent administrators from leaving, but Bridges ordered the campus police to not intervene
-organizor allowed Bridges to go to the restroom with student escorts
Protester asked the captives:
“Don’t you think it’s continuing white supremacy when the leadership is only white people?”
-the administrators nodded yes validating the students who were holding them hostage
-a professor wrote an email praising the students for “doing exactly what we’ve taught them”
-the local police received information that the students intended to target the campus police department buildings
-the police had to set up a post off campus to monitor the situation
-students who defended Weinstein were stalked, targeted by protesters online
-Weinstein with a concern for his safety held one class but held the rest of his courses off campus
-Weinstein learned later that several professors supported him but were afraid to say so in public
-Weinstein when public on the news to tell his story
-the right wing then not students on campus were posting threats as well
June:
-bands of students began roaming the campus armed with baseball bats and tasers, searching for “white supremacists”
-they vandalized buildings and assaulted several students
Who is to blame for this and who will be held accountable?
-a quarter of the faculty signed a letter calling for Weinstein to be investigated, blaming him for provoking “white supremacist backlash”
-they claimed that by speaking about what was happening on the news “endangered students”
***Weinstein filed a tort claim against the college for tolerating and even endorsing, egregious violations of the student conduct code including criminal behavior and for fostering a racially hostile work environment
-in the end, Evergreen agreed on a settlement and the professor resigned
-Stacy Brown, the police chief, later made similar charges claiming that “the hostile environment left her with no choice but to resign from the College.”
-President Bridges, who had criticized the policy of protecting free speech and academic freedom, and then agreed to many of the protesters’ demands announced that he was grateful for the “passion and courage” the protesters displayed
-He then hired one of the leaders of the protests to join his “Presidential Equity Advisors”
****Basically rewriting the student code of conduct
Great Untruth U:
-Evergreen is just one example of Bergesen’s features of political witch hunts
-it was a response to a trivial provocation (a polite email sent to faculty)
-this trivial provocation interpreted as an attack on the entire Evergreen community
The Drama Unfolded:
-faculty and administrators who wanted to defend Weinstein were afraid to do so
-one professor addressed colleagues in support of the protesters
***similar to the Untruth of Fragility (what doesn’t kill you makes you weaker)
***a student illustrated the Untruth of Emotional Reasoning (Always trust your feelings) as a large town hall meeting when she used her own anxiety as evidence that something is wrong at Evergreen
“I want to cry, I can’t tell you how fast my heart is beating. I am shaking in my boots.”
-the entire episode was an illustration of the untruth of Us Versus Them (Life is a battle between good people and evil people)
-the protesting students and faculty supporters engaged in a giant game of common-enemy identity politics by interpreting a politically progressive college and its politically progressive leadership and faculty as exemplars of white supremacy in action
“If you offer any kind of alternative viewpoint, you’re the enemy,” stated one student who refused to join the protest.
“Evergreen story shows what is possible when political diversity is reduced to very low levels, when the school’s leadership is weak and easily intimidated, and when professors and administrators allow or even encourage the propagation of the three Great Untruths.”
In Sum:
-groups engage in rituals including the collective punishment of deviance to enhance cohesion and solidarity
-cohesive and morally homogeneous groups are prone to witch hunts
-witch hunts generally have four properties:
1-they involve charges of crimes against the collective
2-the offenses that lead to those charges are often trivial or fabricated
3-people who know that the accused is innocent keep quiet
4-or in extreme cases, join the mob
-trends since 2015, match the profile of a witch hunt
-campus protests began as a reaction to a politely worded email and led to demands that the author of the email to be fired
-the new trend in 2017 was that professors joined in open letters denouncing their colleagues and demanding the retraction or condemnation of their works
-colleagues of the accused were afraid to publicly stand up and defend them
-viewpoint diversity reduces a community’s susceptibility to witch hunts
-important kinds of viewpoint diversity, diversity of political thought, has declined substantially among both professors and students at American universities since the 1990s
-these declines combined with the rapidly escalating political polarization in the U.S. is part of the reason for why the new culture of safetyism has spread so rapidly since 2013
***Cognitive distortions on campuses, culture of safetyism, and the three Great Untruths