"Responsible Opinion"

A trivial kerfuffle introduces the next buzzy catchphrase.

Just as I was about to set pen to paper (figuratively, of course) regarding the Biden Administration's Ministry of Truth... err... Disinformation Governance Board - which quite coincidentally emerged mere moments (figurative, of course) after Elon Musk's offer to buy Twitter was accepted - I found myself staring, stunned, slack-jawed and speechless (figuratively, of course) at the phrase that titles today's theme.

Little ole Saint Vincent College of Latrobe, PA (a town more famous for a certain beer with a mysterious "33" on its bottles), enrollment 1462, caught some heat over a guest speaker who suggested that VP Kamala Harris was hired based on her demographics more than her qualifications.

Behold, the school President’s denunciatory statement (emphasis in original):

The tenets of Academic Freedom – academic rigor and reasoned analysis - are treasured here. Faculty and students are encouraged to explore, discuss and responsibly debate topics and be inspired to search for truth in our classrooms, and on our campus. Our community, however, will not allow the platform of our College to be used to promote a message contrary to our mission.

The steps we are taking today are intended to do two things. First, we want to make sure we invite a diversity of responsible opinion on a variety of topics important to our students’ educational process. Second, we must restore our students’ and stakeholders’ trust that while this content will be robustly presented in future programs, no message that contravenes the core values expressed above will be allowed.

It was also announced that henceforth all guest speakers would require approval by him and his cabinet. Along with "immediate structural changes" at the group that hosted the speaker (i.e. someone is either getting fired or being put on a very short leash), and a "public forum," i.e. a whine fest, so that students who were grievously offended by some rando's unsanctioned opinion can display their anguish to greater effect.

This episode was just a tiny radar-blip and such the expected norm nowadays that it would have gone unnoticed by me but for the phrase "responsible opinion."

Behold, the next candidate for trending euphemism.

Keep your eyes peeled for that phrase or its equivalent to emerge from the Ministry of Truth, and to be repeated, in true Orwellian-ovine fashion, by the army of apparatchiks that is our mainstream media.

Now and henceforth, our opinions are to be “responsible.” Not “informed,” as Harlan Ellison demanded, but “responsible.”

Responsible to whom?

The equivocation at hand is rooted in our natural belief in "responsibility" as a positive human trait, and so a “responsible” opinion would, we’d expect, be honest, well-constructed, firmly grounded, and defensible.

Nay nay. “Responsible opinions” are, in this iteration, those that conform to the narrative. That do not rock any of the protected boats. That advance the proper ideas and causes. And, most of all, that do not upset the delicates that shelter within the confines of leftism.

Responsible opinions never need trigger warnings.

Responsibility to the truth or facts will be taking a back seat to responsibility to the progressive narrative and responsibility to the Party.

Be prepared, as well, for the hyperbolic antonym, "reckless irresponsibility," to be levied at Musk's Twitter the moment opinions that haven't been blessed by the aforementioned Ministry start trending.

A campaign against disinformation sounds quite nice, doesn't it? It'd be lovely if bad-faith actors, internet trolls, foreign meddlers, and other nefarious types didn't litter social media with lies, innuendo, misdirections, equivocations, and the like. But, such behavior is inevitable and unstoppable, especially in a society where free speech is supposed to be both paramount and protected. It's a reality, past, present, and future.

Moreso, the very last people who should appoint themselves information gatekeepers are those who have a vested interest in quashing inconvenient truths, dissenting opinions, and contrary viewpoints - and especially people who have blatant and proximate history of doing so. The people who created our government knew this, and put plain language into its founding document:

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.

By extension, the agencies created by Congress don't get to abridge free speech, either.

Lies, by the way, are protected speech, as long as they don’t rise to the level of libel, slander, perjury, intimidation, or incitement. We have a criminal justice and court system (along with millions of people ready to pounce on any lie on in the public forum) to handle those, we don’t need a Ministry of Truth to curate our information flow.

In an example of brazenness that'd shock one's sensibilities were it not so often repeated, Biden tapped Nina Jankowicz, who was a prominent "disinformer" regarding the Hunter Biden laptop matter, to run this sinister agency.

I'm sure we will hear how nothing they do will infringe on free speech, that all they're about is the exposure of lies. Perhaps they should start with their own...

---

An addendum - on the matter of the opinion at the heart of the hullaballoo.

St. Vincent College can manage its guest speakers however the bosses decide. Those bosses, along with everyone who works or studies there, is free to reject or denounce the opinion that Harris was a diversity hire. Neither the retroactive rejection of the speaker nor the breadth of denunciation changes the debatability of the (rather widely held) viewpoint, and everyone with a shred of intellectual honesty knows that there’s some truth to the assertion.

My guess at the time was that Biden picked her to bolster his law-and-order bona fides in a moment of much angst over rising lawlessness, but that’s only one of several checkboxes. That she’s utterly failed in the role of VP only adds credence to the argument. In any event, “diversity hire” is not an opinion so outside the bounds of consideration so as to warrant retro-censorship. It’s an uncomfortable one for those who put on the mantle of “woke” to admit, or apparently even ponder, but again, that doesn’t diminish its plausibility.

---

If you enjoy The Roots of Liberty, please subscribe (if you have already, thank you!), and  please recommend the blog to your friends! While I share it as much as I can on social media, subscribing ensures you won't miss a post.

If you really like The Roots of Liberty and want to help keep it rolling, please consider becoming a paying subscriber here at Substack, or at a lighter level as contributor to the blog via Patreon.

Thank you for your support!

Yours in liberty,

Peter.