Free speech as salvation from intellectual mediocrity
Strictly speaking, free speech is not necessary for democracy. But “it’s our salvation from intellectual mediocrity and social ossification,” writes Bret Stephens in The New York Times, as he describes what makes the University of Chicago and its president, Robert Zimmer, be “usefully out of step” with their peers in higher education.
“Concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community,” the (university’s faculty) committee wrote in 2015.
“Those are fighting words at a time when professors live in fear of accidentally offending their own students and a governor needs to declare a countywide state of emergency so that white supremacist Richard Spencer can speak at the University of Florida,” writes Stephens.
“If you can’t speak freely, you’ll quickly lose the ability to think clearly. Your ideas will be built on a pile of assumptions you’ve never examined for yourself and may thus be unable to defend from radical challenges. You will be unable to test an original thought for fear that it might be labeled an offensive one. You will succumb to a form of Orwellian double-think without even having the excuse of living in physical terror of doing otherwise.”
The answer lies in geography
“Populism’s wave has yet to crest,” editorialises The Economist. “That is the sobering lesson of recent elections in Germany and Austria, where the success of anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties showed that a message of hostility to elites and outsiders resonates as strongly as ever among those fed up with the status quo.”
While the populist remedies will not work, their self-defeating nature will not blunt their appeal.
“Perversely, policies to help the poor unintentionally exacerbate the plight of left-behind places. Unemployment and health benefits enable the least employable people to survive in struggling places when once they would have had no choice but to move. Welfare makes capitalism less brutal for individuals, but it perpetuates the problems where they live.”
And for this reason, politicians need a change of mindset. “For progressives, alleviating poverty has demanded welfare; for libertarians, freeing up the economy. Both have focused on people. But the complex interaction of demography, welfare and globalisation means that is insufficient. Assuaging the anger of the left-behind means realising that places matter, too.”
Say no to confidentiality agreements in sexual harassment compensations
A secret about sexual harassment is coming to light, and it is that “our regulatory and judicial systems are complicit in protecting harassers from public exposure and opprobrium,” writes Minna J. Kotkin in The Washington Post.
“Recent revelations about Bill O’Reilly, Roger Ailes and Harvey Weinstein show that they confidentially settled harassment claims in the millions of dollars over decades using legal maneuvers to keep their conduct under the radar. How common is this?”
“Since 1986, when the Supreme Court first recognized that sexual harassment is a form of discrimination, employers and their attorneys have generally insisted that victims who receive financial settlements as a result of harassment allegations sign confidentiality agreements. In my three decades of research and litigation on harassment claims, corporate officials have always insisted that unless settlements are confidential, firms will be overwhelmed by a deluge of accusations, with every disgruntled employee looking for a payout.”
“Confidentiality agreements help protect serial harassers. But with public attention now focused on harassment, victims and their lawyers can shift the balance of power in settlement negotiations. They can agree with their lawyers at the outset that they will not accept a settlement that includes confidentiality — just as defendants now claim that they will never settle without it.”
EU needs to watch Austria closely
What had left the European Union shocked less than two decades ago has evoked little response this time around, writes Heather Grabbe in Politico EU.
“The last time Austria’s populists won more than a quarter of the vote and played kingmaker, in 1999, the other EU members isolated Vienna through bilateral sanctions. But what shocked EU leaders then is barely causing a stir now.”
“Many in Brussels worry about Austria joining the ranks of Euroskeptic Poland and Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, over their shared opposition to EU-mandated burden-sharing on immigration and asylum. But there are limits to the potential Orbánization of Austria.
“Austria has a high level of respect for the rule of law that dates back to the Hapsburg monarchy; its government is unlikely to defy EU law as Budapest and Warsaw have done. The country is conservative, but there is no deep seam of nationalism based on historical grievances to mine.”
“The big test for Austria’s new governing coalition could come during the country’s turn at the presidency of the European Council in the second half of 2018. If there is a Franco-German push to make another attempt at a sustainable migration policy for the EU — and maybe even a new burden-sharing scheme on asylum — then Austria’s likely new premier will have to choose between his anti-migration stance and pro-European ambitions.”
Pakistan should be more angry than relieved
The relief following the reappearance of journalist Zeenat Shahzadi ought to be followed by anger, says an editorial in Dawn.
“Disregarding all protests of civil society, the theatre of enforced disappearances has not only expanded from Balochistan to the rest of the country, especially Sindh, but it has also become more brazen, with abductions taking place even in broad daylight in urban centres. Journalists, rights activists, social workers — anyone it seems is a viable target. Several still remain missing.
There is no doubt that Pakistan, like most other countries, must remain vigilant against subversive elements, but the state, in complete violation of constitutionally protected rights, has evidently expanded the definition of ‘subversion’ to include any citizen critical of its policies or seeking for it to be held accountable. The circumstances of Ms Shahzadi’s disappearance and ‘recovery’, the threats she had received prior to her abduction and the fact there was no ransom demand during her captivity, raise questions that lend themselves to but one conclusion.”