Nobody wants to be chased across a campus quad with a bullhorn, and not that many people want to do the chasing. Instead, we create a blend of restraint and safety to enable expression of views with political flashpoints. So for every kid who got harassed, dozens more cheered them on. The debate over issues still proceeded, though with slogans and placards. And when afforded anonymity, our social media teems with toxic comments on every issue imaginable. Self-censorship occurs, but people compartmentalize it, distinguishing between safe and unsafe forums.
This is not particularly new, though flashpoints have come and gone. We had Vietnam protests, where people assembled in groups. The four victims at Kent State did not anticipate personal danger as individuals in a crowd. We had people who lied to pollsters, not wanting a person who saw their face to know that they would vote against Tom Bradley or for Frank Rizzo, to avoid personal stigma, even if it would not happen under polling rules.
While human nature remains constant, social norms shift. In my college years, Class of ’73, we had fewer disqualifications of people with unpopular ideas. George Wallace and Dr. Spock each did the campus lecture circuit. A few protest signs discreetly placed, but no heckling as they spoke. And let’s not forget that the first paid ads in the student newspaper promoting abortion clinic availability came in the 1970s.
What we had then, and have now, are masses of people not wanting to risk personal harm but still with opinions offset but also a subset of more Chutzpadig people willing to take Pres TR’s advice to let themselves get battered in a public arena.
In another era, not that long ago, Letters to the Editor had to be selected to express a spectrum of opinions. They all required a name, city, and contact info to be considered for publication. People wrote to editors, and still do, identifying themselves. But even more sent cards and letters to TV stations and celebrities where personal exposure was not at risk.
The irony being, of course, that the examples we have of public figures who say exactly what they think; absolutely, positively never apologize for any of their controversial statements; and who double down when sensor or cenure efforts are made -- these are the people who excel. The rugged individualist maintains an advantage over the collective mind hive, even if perhaps the advantage isn't as great as it once was.
In my personal life, I can agree: “I hardly ever get into a disagreement with anyone about anything. There’s a practical reason for that, by the way. I generally don’t hang out with people that I strongly disagree with on important matters. And even if I do manage to find myself in that type of company, both parties are smart enough to know not to talk about topics that will raise our blood pressure. We are middle aged, after all.”
But I’m serving as a county commissioner, where issues can get heated. Discussions reinforce that in America, what is our shared method for working through a decision? Is there interest or an "opportunity for improvement”?
Link to an article on a heated issue on a road upgrade. A public presentation on the plan will be conducted by the Indiana DOT on July 16 – should be interesting.
The “So what?” Maybe a shared method for discussing controversial issues could lead to better outcomes. We may see on July 16 if our approach (see article) helped to resolve some concerns on this issue.
On topic #2 on this list, abortion: I work in administration at a small medical school. Abortion is one of the topics that, per some of our accrediting bodies, should be discussed in medical ethics. For years in our curriculum it was.
Since 2020, the pro-abortion contingent became increasingly aggressive in insisting that there was only one appropriate opinion to have as a medical professional, which is that there is an unlimited human right to abortion, as "abortion is health care." What had previously been nuanced discussion topics--like parental notification for abortion in minors, at what developmental stage the fetus can feel pain, regulation of medical abortions vs. surgical abortions, what features make humans valuable cp. to animals and how this informs ethical considerations on how research is conducted on animals, humans, and embryos--was becoming impossible to get any discussion of, at all. Student complaints were made that there should be no discussion of these topics, because abortion is not controversial, because "abortion is health care." This silencing on this topic harmed student discussions on other topics, and made both students and faculty members very uncomfortable. As a result, we have not included abortion as a topic in medical ethics since 2023.
That reminds me of Emma Green's great piece at the New Yorker a couple years ago, "What the End of Roe v. Wade Will Mean for the Next Generation of Obstetricians"
One interesting quote, "Two faculty members stated directly in medical student lectures that they think anyone holding a conscientious objection to abortion should reconsider if it’s ethical to be an ob-gyn.”
In an ironic silencing twist, I can't read this article because it's paywalled. And the AI summary says that it's arguing that because of Dobbs, students won't be allowed to learn about abortion anymore (??)...which I don't think is exactly what Emma Green is saying, based on your description and pull quote.
At our school, I know for a fact that there are students who are opposed to abortion. But that's not a position that would ever be expressed publicly.
There is also an element of doctrine. Some very medical schools, including mine, have Jesuit sponsorship. Residency training programs are sometimes centered at medical centers that prohibit abortion or university OB students and residents rotate through them as part of their training. Students who graduate from the Jesuit schools and train in OB at other places will get the spectrum of training. Those training at the affiliated hospitals will not.
Thus far, a free market approach to The Match has prevailed. Graduating students can choose where they want to train sorta, though some will match to programs that exclude parts of the training. The free market will have its Second Act when trained OBs decide where to practice and communities try to recruit them.
These realities, though, do not change the underlying principle of today's stats. There is a form of self-censorship designed to protect individuals that plays out later in both our education and in our civic values.
Nobody wants to be chased across a campus quad with a bullhorn, and not that many people want to do the chasing. Instead, we create a blend of restraint and safety to enable expression of views with political flashpoints. So for every kid who got harassed, dozens more cheered them on. The debate over issues still proceeded, though with slogans and placards. And when afforded anonymity, our social media teems with toxic comments on every issue imaginable. Self-censorship occurs, but people compartmentalize it, distinguishing between safe and unsafe forums.
This is not particularly new, though flashpoints have come and gone. We had Vietnam protests, where people assembled in groups. The four victims at Kent State did not anticipate personal danger as individuals in a crowd. We had people who lied to pollsters, not wanting a person who saw their face to know that they would vote against Tom Bradley or for Frank Rizzo, to avoid personal stigma, even if it would not happen under polling rules.
While human nature remains constant, social norms shift. In my college years, Class of ’73, we had fewer disqualifications of people with unpopular ideas. George Wallace and Dr. Spock each did the campus lecture circuit. A few protest signs discreetly placed, but no heckling as they spoke. And let’s not forget that the first paid ads in the student newspaper promoting abortion clinic availability came in the 1970s.
What we had then, and have now, are masses of people not wanting to risk personal harm but still with opinions offset but also a subset of more Chutzpadig people willing to take Pres TR’s advice to let themselves get battered in a public arena.
In another era, not that long ago, Letters to the Editor had to be selected to express a spectrum of opinions. They all required a name, city, and contact info to be considered for publication. People wrote to editors, and still do, identifying themselves. But even more sent cards and letters to TV stations and celebrities where personal exposure was not at risk.
I think this is a case of a very small, but very vocal minority (on both sides) who chill free speech for 80-90% of a campus.
The irony being, of course, that the examples we have of public figures who say exactly what they think; absolutely, positively never apologize for any of their controversial statements; and who double down when sensor or cenure efforts are made -- these are the people who excel. The rugged individualist maintains an advantage over the collective mind hive, even if perhaps the advantage isn't as great as it once was.
In my personal life, I can agree: “I hardly ever get into a disagreement with anyone about anything. There’s a practical reason for that, by the way. I generally don’t hang out with people that I strongly disagree with on important matters. And even if I do manage to find myself in that type of company, both parties are smart enough to know not to talk about topics that will raise our blood pressure. We are middle aged, after all.”
But I’m serving as a county commissioner, where issues can get heated. Discussions reinforce that in America, what is our shared method for working through a decision? Is there interest or an "opportunity for improvement”?
Link to an article on a heated issue on a road upgrade. A public presentation on the plan will be conducted by the Indiana DOT on July 16 – should be interesting.
https://bcdemocrat.com/2026/03/14/guest-column-the-decision-making-process-for-upgrading-pumpkin-ridge-road/
The “So what?” Maybe a shared method for discussing controversial issues could lead to better outcomes. We may see on July 16 if our approach (see article) helped to resolve some concerns on this issue.
On topic #2 on this list, abortion: I work in administration at a small medical school. Abortion is one of the topics that, per some of our accrediting bodies, should be discussed in medical ethics. For years in our curriculum it was.
Since 2020, the pro-abortion contingent became increasingly aggressive in insisting that there was only one appropriate opinion to have as a medical professional, which is that there is an unlimited human right to abortion, as "abortion is health care." What had previously been nuanced discussion topics--like parental notification for abortion in minors, at what developmental stage the fetus can feel pain, regulation of medical abortions vs. surgical abortions, what features make humans valuable cp. to animals and how this informs ethical considerations on how research is conducted on animals, humans, and embryos--was becoming impossible to get any discussion of, at all. Student complaints were made that there should be no discussion of these topics, because abortion is not controversial, because "abortion is health care." This silencing on this topic harmed student discussions on other topics, and made both students and faculty members very uncomfortable. As a result, we have not included abortion as a topic in medical ethics since 2023.
That reminds me of Emma Green's great piece at the New Yorker a couple years ago, "What the End of Roe v. Wade Will Mean for the Next Generation of Obstetricians"
One interesting quote, "Two faculty members stated directly in medical student lectures that they think anyone holding a conscientious objection to abortion should reconsider if it’s ethical to be an ob-gyn.”
It's an incredibly thought provoking piece: https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-education/what-the-end-of-roe-v-wade-will-mean-for-the-next-generation-of-obstetricians
In an ironic silencing twist, I can't read this article because it's paywalled. And the AI summary says that it's arguing that because of Dobbs, students won't be allowed to learn about abortion anymore (??)...which I don't think is exactly what Emma Green is saying, based on your description and pull quote.
At our school, I know for a fact that there are students who are opposed to abortion. But that's not a position that would ever be expressed publicly.
In alignment with my previous response, link to an article introducing suggested methods for discussing the abortion issue. https://timjclark.substack.com/p/a-quality-management-perspective.
There is also an element of doctrine. Some very medical schools, including mine, have Jesuit sponsorship. Residency training programs are sometimes centered at medical centers that prohibit abortion or university OB students and residents rotate through them as part of their training. Students who graduate from the Jesuit schools and train in OB at other places will get the spectrum of training. Those training at the affiliated hospitals will not.
Thus far, a free market approach to The Match has prevailed. Graduating students can choose where they want to train sorta, though some will match to programs that exclude parts of the training. The free market will have its Second Act when trained OBs decide where to practice and communities try to recruit them.
These realities, though, do not change the underlying principle of today's stats. There is a form of self-censorship designed to protect individuals that plays out later in both our education and in our civic values.