Harvard’s recent exposition: Free speech discloses liars

Humankind’s technological reality seems vastly disconnected from its moral progress. NASA is planning a colony on Mars. Meanwhile the Biden Administration is negotiating funds to aid the wanton killing of babies in Gaza and around the world. And Harvard ponders plagiarism in high office. American Universities could -- should discover the cause of moral irresponsibility, and civic citizens are concerned. By “civic” I mean reliably responsible to the good in human connections and transactions.

                Dr. James Stoner, professor at LSU and Harvard alum, at https://lawliberty.org/a-defense-of-the-neoliberal-university/ shared thoughts on Keith E. Whittington’s book, Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech. Dr. Whittington is Professor of Politics at Princeton University. Not having read the book, I sought an impression of Whittington and found civic encouragement (although I prefer “facilitation” rather than “force” in personal development) at (15) John Stuart Mill's big idea: Harsh critics make good thinkers | Keith Whittington | Big Think - YouTube. I do not support Professor Stoner’s favor toward Church.

                In public, some people choose to either initiate or accommodate the bad to fellow citizens. Most people who choose the good don’t accept that they may and can constrain the bad. Neither Church nor government pursue the good. Each focuses on growing itself, and they often partner against civic integrity. So far, the good people have not taken charge. Consequently, in 2024, humankind seems in chaos.

                Ancient political philosophers suggest that humankind’s purpose is to rule to the good on earth. They observe that language and grammar empower humankind over other living species and the world. See, for example, Genesis 1:26-28’s comment on Sumerian political philosophy: humankind may rule to the good on earth. The rest of the Holy Bible reports the chaos people invite when they choose the bad.

                Truth stands the test of time. That humankind is in charge on earth was suggested 5500 years ago. Failure, so far, informs that churches and governments cannot usurp humankind’s duty. Human power and authority depend on each individual who chooses the good and pursues the ineluctable truth; Ineluctable means not to be avoided, changed, or resisted -- Merriam-Webster. The ineluctable truth is stymied when citizens stonewall each other. Permitting liars empowers them to affirm actual reality.

                Among humankind, it seems wrong to perceive that Christian beliefs define human being (verb). Most humans use religion to improve life. Only a third of the world’s population believe the Christ saved their spirit and that by grace they are antinomian to moral law. That leaves 2/3 of humankind out of collaborative civics. Yet Jesus, not Christ, is among reported history’s greatest political philosophers. I speculate that 80% of people on earth consider Jesus an influence to the good. Christ, not so much if at all.

                Ralph Waldo Emerson discovered Jesus’ unique civic message, in my paraphrase:  Each person can pursue their perfect human being (verb). In his 1838 essay, “Divinity School Address”, Emerson explained the Church’s tyranny in promoting the Christ – the Church advocating perfection upon-the-afterdeath rather than for-civic-integrity-in-life. The afterdeath is the individual’s indefinite time when body, mind, and person stop functioning. I think there’s only dust and past personal progress toward perfection. Harvard prevented Emerson’s return until 30 years later, when he enjoyed world renown. Harvard’s free-speech infamy started long ago.

                Emerson’s common sense was ineffective for two reasons. First, Harvard and other divinity enterprises suppressed Emerson’s speech. Second, Emerson did not suggest ways readers could encounter Jesus rather than the Christ – the political philosopher rather than mysterious savior of spirits – the man rather than the Church.

Jesus did not stonewall public discussion except to escape killers. For example, in Matthew 19:3-8, Jesus responds to collaborative students, improves the Torah, refers to Genesis 1:26-28, and informs men to unite to their wife to become a unique entity; all that in one conversation. In John 10:34, Jesus says the individual has the power; and in Matthew 5:48 says their power can pursue perfection, each statement reflecting Genesis 1:26-28, a political philosophy that originated in polytheistic Sumer civilization.

                It’s a shame that American universities debate diversity rather than reliable responsibility, equality and equity rather than civic integrity, democracy rather than republican pursuit of statutory justice, liberty rather than independence, religion rather than actual reality, and Christian doctrine rather than Jesus’ civic influence to the good.

                Turning to Professor Stoner’s article, this reader would like more explanation of jargon used.

                First, what “Christian strictures” inhibit appreciation and what distinguishes “intellectual debate”? Christianity debates mystery, which offers no resolution of life’s concerns. There are dozens of Bible canon and 45,000 Christian sects in the world. “Intellectual” implies reason based on evidence rather than emotion, intending to accomplish resolution. How can debate about mystery achieve resolution? For a professor to imply that they resolved the mystery of God and propose to share the conclusion with colleagues seems out of place and time.

                Second, “service the American democracy” appeals to socialism’s bias against the United States’ constitutional republic. Marxists have decided that America can be defeated by ignoring the law while civic citizens wait for church or state to bring justice. If called into court, socialists may choose to respond. Often, they say they forgot their past actions. Judges and lawyers collect pay and wait for more court action. Shame on benefitting lawyers and judges. I write to encourage fellow citizens to vote to uphold the U.S. republic and pursue statutory justice.

                Third, what is “secular university”? Is it a university that conforms to the godless message of Genesis 1:26-28, that is a university that pursues statutory justice on earth? Does secular university practice, advocate, and facilitate humankind to rule to the good on earth?

                Fourth, why does academia avoid ineluctable evidence? The phrase “the ineluctable truth” was published in 1906, according to Google ngrams, and usage has grown since then. Why aren’t professors using “the ineluctable truth” or better in teaching? What, beyond the bad, is special about academic opinion?

                Fifth, why does academia resist the reality that “free speech” is a political construct? If a person does not speak with humility toward the ineluctable truth, they are begging woe. The person who opposes the laws of physics invites ruin. When woe or ruin comes to them, they have the opportunity to reform by making amends and not repeating the error. When their speech delivers harm to others, statutory justice demands accounting. Harvard’s lesson in humility is ongoing.

                Sixth, how can university cling to “Lockean liberty of conscience” when life makes plain to every considerate person that they may, in self-interest, choose the good in every action. It’s true that there will always be people who perceive that they prefer the bad. However, fellow citizens need not invite the woe the bad ineluctably delivers. I accept that some professors think the bad can be moderated. However, I oppose professors imposing that opinion on students and the public.

                Seventh, “mutual respect” is not possible without mutual appreciation. For example, Hebrews waiting for the Messiah, Catholics living with the Eucharist, Protestants waiting for Christ’s return, and Muslims submitting to Allah cannot respect each other without mutual humility to the human commission: rule to the good on earth. By accepting that they may and can choose the good in every action, people can hold their religious beliefs and still be civic citizens. In public, religious beliefs can be held private while religious doctrine is weighed against civic integrity and reformed if necessary. The person who appreciates life cannot respect the individual who destroys safety and security, let alone life itself.

                Eighth, in academic speech there is no place for hate. Professors may and can create an atmosphere of humility and forgiveness. Professors may demand of themselves understanding of the knowledge. For example, I suggest that Hebrews and Christians who hate Muslims may be persuaded to examine and decry Genesis 16:1-12 as inconsistent with Genesis 1:26-28’s responsibility to rule to the good on earth. Knowledge of scripture can be used to foment hate, while understanding can establish appreciation. In Christianity, I think “hate” in Luke 14:26 is the writer’s egregious bad, unintentional or not. The world’s 1/3 Christians and Hebrews may reform hate in their doctrine and collaborate with Muslims to conform to Genesis 1:26-28. Then, another 45% of the world’s population could take notice and do the work to understand.

                Ninth, like the rest of human beings, professors have not the luxury of teaching “truth as they see it”. When professors don’t know the ineluctable truth, they may and can express their opinion and say so. It’s often prudent to follow statement of opinion with, “But I don’t know the ineluctable truth”.

                Tenth, what is “modern scientific thinking”? I think research is a process and its product is discovery of ineluctable evidence, either positive or negative. As new instruments of perception are invented, civic understanding approaches the ineluctable truth. For example, the “flat” earth seemed like a globe to researchers living 5000 years ago, was reported round 2500 years ago, confirmed round 400 years ago, and observed as a globe 80 years ago. Research has always pursued ineluctable evidence using the best available tools of perception. Reason is a process tool that cannot alter the evidence.

                I hope to have the opportunity to discuss my ideas in a forum that intends to aid humankind’s acceptance that they may, can, and will rule to the good on earth, despite the perception that there will always be some people who prefer the bad. I hope LSU will lead such a forum.

#USpreambler

Copyright©2024 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included.