At French universities, cases of censorship in the name of wokism are multiplying.
This argument is used in the debate Does being on the left necessarily mean being in favor of mass immigration?.
This argument is an objection to Many allegations of censorship are fake news and The "woke" are censored far more often than their opponents.
Summary
Numerous conferences and debates are cancelled due to woke or woke-like censorship in French universities, at Science Po or in cultural venues. Instead of accepting debate and plurality, woke students and so-called "anfifas" with their fascist methods, threaten and provoke disturbances that prevent their opponents from coming.
Here are just a few examples:
- reading of Charb's letter on Islamophobic swindlers prevented by a climate of intimidation and far-left groups, and tribute to Charb paid only after complicated negotiations at Science Po Paris: https://www.marianne.net/societe/education/sciences-po-se-barricade-pour-ecouter-le-testament-de-charb
- a conference by left-wing philosopher Sylviane Agincinsky prevented from taking place at the university: https://www.marianne.net/societe/sylviane-agacinski-censuree-le-nouveau-visage-du-fascisme-universitaire
- Alain Finkielkraut prevented from holding a conference at Science Po Paris, which is finally taking place "under heavy police protection" (pardon the pun!) :https://www.marianne.net/societe/un-groupe-antiraciste-tente-de-chasser-alain-finkielkraut-de-sciences-po-paris
This is just following the example of the USA, where the wokes are trying to exercise censorship against thought that "deviates" from their theses.
This hatred of debate is pathological and turns its back on all the achievements of philosophy since Socrates. It's an attitude of irrational fear in the face of anything that might challenge their little certainties, as these "antifa" and woke students have become prisoners of the confirmation bias.
Quotes
“Small radical groups imposing a climate of terror to impose their views and silence opponents have a name: they're called fascist militias. The only difference is that these groups enjoy infinite leniency from certain political and media circles, insofar as they claim to embody the Good. Who can argue with that? The fight against all forms of discrimination, whether sexist, racist or homophobic, is the horizon of contemporary democracies that have abandoned any idea of social progress and collective emancipation, and any idea, even, of surpassing oneself through knowledge and inner deliberation, which was the project of that humanism of which Montaigne is the embodiment. In this instance, these associations' arguments are perfectly assumed: Sylviane Agacinski is a "notorious homophobe" to whom it would be "dangerous and unconscious" to offer a "platform" in a context of "unabashed homophobia and transphobia" (media, anti-PMA demonstrations, assaults, refusal of PMA to transgender people...)." Yes, the refusal of PMA to transgender people is, for these sympathetic students, proof of the generalized homophobia that would gangrene French society. It doesn't matter that all opinion polls show major progress in mentalities and that the assault of a transsexual raises waves of indignation. What's real doesn't matter, only the petitions of principle that justify the continuation of the fight against the foul beast. And we can call a philosopher who defended the Pacs and marriage for all a "notorious homophobe" (notorious for whom? by what criteria?)...'”
References
Justifications
Objections
-
Wrong, it's anti-wokism that censors its opponents
-
It's the far right that's creating a climate of terror, not the "woke".
-
When a teacher or lecturer flouts scientific rigor, it's legitimate to exclude him or her.
-
The far right invents censorship that doesn't exist in order to victimize itself
-
These cases are marginal, and are fanned by the far right to frighten people.
-
The far right reacts with deafening silence when left-wing speakers are censored