Take a look at the latest issues of the Claremont Portside and of the Claremont Independent and you'll notice something. The Portside, long been the disappointing alternative to the CI's raging conservatism, has gotten a lot better. It's well-organized, the articles are interesting, and the opinions conveyed are more dynamic than over-simplified politics.
The CI, on the other hand, is slacking. Many articles are out-of-date at the time of publication (a movie review from a summer film, an article on freshmen orientation) and few are engaging. The CI continues to rag on Civ 10 and oppose relativism and this issue they found some anonymous minoritiy students to complain that "race retreats" are segrationalist. None of this is terribly suprising or very interesting.
The Portside, while certainly making some standard "liberal" calls for justice, also engages in real debate and addresses issues that are more complex than simple binary politics allow. Thus Civ 10 is both commended and criticized. Teach for America's low retention rate is explored, but the conclusion doesn't write off the program. The Portside, while clearly on the left, at least engages the reader, whereas the CI either repels or reflects the reader's already established beliefs.
You may wonder what this all has to do with human rights and this blog in particular. I originally planned to post David Nahmias's Are We Stopping Genocide? piece but then realized that nearly all of the Portside's articles touch on issues of human rights. Aside from one article making fun of Bono, none of the CI's articles do.
The Independent's been coasting for too long as the best publication at CMC. The new Portside is not only a worthy opponent in quality writing, it has more relevant content and is a better reflection of the student body at CMC. Check out the Portside here. Nice job rockin' the boat, guys.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
You make some good points, Becky. The CI has articles wherein they seem to feel persecuted; they bemoan the liberalizing of CMC. However, tey are doing a very poor job of representing the conservative voice themselves. The balance seemed to have been that the Democrats of the Claremont Colleges were a very strong club but supported by a weak Portside. The Claremont Republicans, on the other hand, were a weak club but supported by a strong intellectual Claremont Independent. Now, the conservatives have done poorly on both fronts, where the liberal part of campus has become strong on all fronts. I'm no conservative, but I'd like a stronger opposition.
The Portside really is looking great. I'm glad to see it strengthened and well-polished.
Look at the new issue.
What a mischaracterization of my article on Bono! Aside from making fun of Bono, my article addresses substantive ways to make African development accelerate. Development stops genocide. Rich and economically upward countries seldom exterminate poor people.
What's more, you attack my article about the racial retreats without going into the substance or providing a link. The phenomenon of seeing fellow students as 'other' is the foundation of all genocide.
You nicely show why the Blog for Human Rights has lost all credibility. Too bad, you could have done some good in the world.
Becky, while criticisms are always welcome, I’m not sure it is appropriate for a blog that claims to be sponsored by the Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights blatantly to attack either the Claremont Independent or the Claremont Portside.
I will keep my comments brief. You claim that nothing in the November issue of the CI had anything to do with human rights. Perhaps you did not read my Civ 10 piece closely enough, or perhaps you misunderstood it.
In my article, I write:
…
Without a natural standard, and by accepting multiculturalism as an inherent good, one could not reasonably say that the sati is an abhorrent practice. One could not even call the holocaust evil, or even slightly so. But every multiculturalist college kid “knows” the holocaust was evil—yet his condemnation is hollow. For how could he be so insensitive to Nazi culture? And, he might ask, is his own knowledge of relativism not simply an arbitrary product of his time and culture?
“But, alas, is our liberal defense really so puny and weak against totalitarians who claim they do not need reason to force their way? Is our repulsion really nothing more than an accumulation of petty passions that spring from biology and culture? Or maybe our disgust is real. Perhaps when we perceive injustice, we perceive some real discord with nature and we reason against it. It is this recognition that suggests reason can guide us to a natural justice.
“In America, we are fortunate to have a government founded in a natural claim to justice. The Founders reasoned from human equality that all men must have natural rights that government must secure. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
…
You attack the CI for continuing “to rag on Civ 10 and oppose relativism.” Indeed, I oppose relativism—because I support human rights. You are the Center for the Study of the Holocaust. I will repeat to you the questions I pose in my article: is our liberal defense really so puny and weak against totalitarians (that is, Hitler)? How can we condemn the Holocaust as evil, if good and evil are only relative?
And certainly we can agree that the Declaration of Independence is a human rights document. It claims that the most fundamental human rights are inalienable; they are absolute and final. Certainly that is something the Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights can believe in.
Hi Charles,
While you did make some worthwhile points about economic development in Africa, the tone of your piece was quite mocking. That's fine, mocking can be an effective way to get a point across, I just wanted to explain why I labeled it as an article "making fun of Bono." I agree that there is more to your article than just that, hence the provided link.
As for the race retreats piece, I strongly disagree with the idea that recognizing differences is the sole cause of genocide. Ignoring differences disallows for protection of these differences, which can also lead to genocide. The idea of the "other" is a much more complex one than you have asserted.
Lastly, I'm sorry you feel the blog has lost all credibility, because the purpose of the blog is to foster discussion, which it seems to be doing. Would you like to become a regular contributor? You are welcome to do so.
Ilan,
As I said in the comment to Charles, the blog is intended to foster discussion, not to represent the opinions of the Center.
That said, my personal opinion is that the argument against relativism is highly politicized and is often used to serve a conservative agenda, not to promote human rights values.
Additionally, just as one could claim that relativism allows for human rights abuses, one could just the same assert that an unwavering conception of what is good and right in the face of foreign cultures can result in human rights being violated.
It is not the idea that there is an objective truth that I oppose, it is the idea that we possess it. This is a dangerous mindset and prevents the kind of reflection that Civ 10 encourages.
In fact, it is very difficult to condemn the Holocaust as evil. That is why people devote their lives to studying it, and why there are institutions that allow them to do so. This study is imperative to learning why it happened and preventing it from happening in the future, and is much more important than being able to defend the evilness of it. Similarly, I would stress the understanding of various cultural practices before condemning them, because in doing so we both can reassess our own values and reexamine what we hold to be true and good. And this is not relativism, this is keeping an open mind. From there, we can make proper judgments. I agree that absolute relativism can be dangerous, but so can the opposite extreme.
(NOTE TO EDITOR: TWO GRAMMATICAL ERRORS FIXED)
Becky,
I've enjoyed reading through this exchange -- thanks for starting this discussion!
First, I don't remember any articles in the CI in the last four years that we've been at CMC, until this issue, that address Civ 10. Perhaps my memory fails me, in which case you should tell me where I can find an earlier CI article on Civ 10. I think your original post makes it sound like the CI is always going after Civ 10.
Second, to say that "the argument against relativism" is "used to serve a conservative agenda" is a little insulting. I don't know whether you aim to impugn the motives of the writers or conservatives in general, but it sounds like you're saying that the "agenda" takes the place of some greater end (I'll confess: the conservative agenda is actually a means for the end of justice, or human rights, if you prefer).
Finally, this section shows why it is important for there to be a voice on campus that tackles issues like relativism:
"It is not the idea that there is an objective truth that I oppose, it is the idea that we possess it. This is a dangerous mindset and prevents the kind of reflection that Civ 10 encourages.
In fact, it is very difficult to condemn the Holocaust as evil. That is why people devote their lives to studying it, and why there are institutions that allow them to do so."
This sounds like extreme skepticism -- that moral laws cannot be derived from reason, but only from revelation, which is itself doubted.
There are self-evident truths that show us why the Holocaust is wrong. These truths can be found through reason in nature. We know that "all men are created equal" because no distinction exists between any two people in nature that is greater than the distinction between man and beast. There is nothing natural that makes one a slave and the other a master. Because all men are equal, they are endowed equally with natural rights (or human rights, if you prefer) like life, liberty, and the pursuit of true happiness.
Something like the Holocaust comes about when those natural truths are ignored and when the human will becomes the only trustworthy source of knowledge. Things like a rational foundation for virtue are denied.
This can be just as dangerous as "radical relativism," as it can lead to the worst forms of tyranny. There is a real concern that a rejection of the notion that man can access truth (even if it does exist) by reason will threaten the principle of equality and thus the only firm basis upon which free government stands. Human will as the standard of justice leads inevitably toward the worst evils.
Looking at other cultures is great, so long as it doesn't shake our confidence in the unchanging, eternal truths found in our Declaration of Independence.
It's not my immediate aim to convince you of the importance of natural law/reason as a source of virtue. I do hope that you'll consider why, for conservatives like myself, philosophical ideas like relativism are more than just a straw man against which to advance an agenda.
Let me know if there's anything I said that you would like me to clarify further.
Hey Kevin,
You're right, my post does unduly write off conservative ideology as serving a biased "conservative agenda" and for that I apologize.
I guess at this point it's obvious that we differ on the issue of natural rights and the infallibility of the Declaration of Independence.
I do think it's difficult to derive moral laws from reason, and as such I don't see how we can condemn the Holocaust based on natural laws. Just as Ilan asserted that "multicultarilist college kids" have weak bases from which to condemn genocide, I also believe that it is difficult to condemn the Holocaust based on natural law. It seems empty, since reason and "irrefutable" truths led to this kind of totalitarianism to begin with (NOT that I'm equating conservative ideology to totalitarianism, I just think absolutes are harmful in general).
One important aspect of Holocaust studies is recognizing both the banality of evil, as Hannah Arendt termed it, and the arbitrariness of it. Many nations, including ours, believe in natural rights, but all have violated that idea in action. The disconnect between reason and action has led me to accept Richard Rorty's idea that human rights can only be obtained through a sentimental education that recognizes differences and tries to empathize. I know the reference probably makes you as a conservative cringe a little (don't worry, I'm not a full-fledged Rorty supporter), but I think it's worth looking into regardless.
But, as I said, we'll probably always disagree.
Fascinating conversation, everyone -- mind if I jump in?
Becky, would you please clarify what you mean by your assertion that "reason" or the belief in "absolute truth" led to the Holocaust? If we're going to argue the philosophical roots of the Holocaust (as opposed to merely Hitler's psycho-paranoid anti-semetism), I'd argue it's pretty clear it was a romantic rebellion precisely *against* reason, natural law, and the inherent, knowable dignity of the individual.
This is not to say that those who claim to know an "absolute truth" haven't done horrible things throughout history, but why must that mean that truth isn't knowable, instead of that those people were simply wrong about what that truth was? And that's the beauty -- and necessity -- of natural law: It insists that there's a framework, grounded upon reasoned consideration of the human condition, for determining whether these truth claims are right or wrong.
And don't you even acknowledge this yourself? You make a truth claim -- "genocide bad, human rights vital" -- based on your reasoned consideration of what you know about both what humans are capable of and what our needs and higher aspirations are. And you even draw from this a conclusion about how human beings should be educated.
My main gripe with Rorty here isn't so much that he's a scary relativist, but that his conclusions are so weak. Emotion and sentiment as the foundation for human rights? Nazis were certainly very sentimental -- towards everyone they thought they had to be. Certainly sentimental concern is important, but it raises so many other questions: For whom? How do I recognize a fellow human being I should empathize with? What is the basis of that empathy? Are there limits to that empathy? How do I deal with someone -- or, even, an entire nation -- that doesn't share my sentiments?
Evil is banal and arbitrary? Fine. What makes it evil? On what grounds do we condemn it?
Of course, the natural law adherent would pose such questions in a different -- and, I'd argue, more useful -- way. But you simply can't get away from the conclusion that these questions are *answerable* in a way that points to a real, solid, universal truth if you want to strive towards justice in a dangerous, serious world.
Of course this is difficult, both on a practical and philosophical level. But difficult does not mean untrue. And I'd argue that it would seem a lot more practicable if human rights scholars didn't act as if they had to construct an entire system from scratch because pre-Holocaust Western thought failed to rid the world of evil.
Post a Comment