This article is a response to “When campus conservatives invoke ‘ideological diversity,’ don’t take them seriously” published in the Washington Square News (WSN).
On May 4, WSN published an opinion piece asserting that “ideological diversity” was merely a dog whistle campus conservatives use to normalize “bigotry.” The op-ed implied that the Washington Square Post, the publication I founded to foster ideological diversity on campus, is simply another piece of a vast rightwing hate-mongering disinformation complex. These outlandish claims are completely divorced from reality and deeply insidious.
The Washington Square Post was established upon the conviction that diversity of thought and robust public discourse are prerequisites of liberal democracy. NYU itself, as with all other academic institutions in the West, was built upon this proposition. Sadly, intellectual heterogeneity has been lacking at NYU for some time now. Nearly all humanities and social science courses are taught from a center-left to leftwing perspective, and polling suggests that the overwhelming majority of the student body identifies as either “progressive” or “liberal.” How can the contest of ideas flourish in a space where the entire opposing side of the political spectrum is virtually absent? The Washington Square Post aims to amend this situation by providing a platform for perspectives that dare to be irreverent and question cultural sacred cows. How else can progress be made without these necessary confrontations?
If we were to accept the premise that we ought to shy away from talking about controversial issues because it may make certain classes of individuals feel uncomfortable, then we would be sacrificing free speech, the best means for human advancement through adversarial dialogue, at the altar of political correctness and fear.
We at the Washington Square Post adamantly reject the notion that the fragile emotions and feeble egos of WSN writers ought to be the arbiters of what speech is “off-limits.” In a space that is genuinely dedicated to the free exchange of ideas, no there should be no opinions that do not receive an airing in the public domain simply because someone might be “triggered.” It is incredibly patronizing of the author of this screed to claim that students of color and members of the LGBT community are incapable of hearing ideas that they might disagree with without feeling disenfranchised. And to lie about our publication by saying our contributors’ takes are rooted in “white supremacy” and “homophobia” is slanderous and an attempt to silence us.
As for the respective political orientations of our contributors, we play host to a wide range of views. The WSN article chose to cite an anonymous piece that was published on our website critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in a pathetic attempt to paint us as monolithically opposed to civil rights. This contemptuous smear could not be further from the truth. Just last week, we published a response to that piece championing civil rights legislation. I’m sure this back-and-forth exchange within the confines of one platform might seem fantastical to WSN writers who live in a homogeneous bubble in which conformity is prized above all else.
Attempts to associate our publication with groups like TPUSA and other illiberal elements on the right are ludicrously bemusing. In the aftermath of the January 6 riot at the Capitol, I published a piece in NYU Politics Society’s In the Zeitgeist condemning President Trump’s autocratic attempts to remain in office after losing a free and fair election. I also critiqued the current trajectory of the GOP. Additionally, our contributors have authored pieces like “The Elitism of Populism” and “Perils of The People” highlighting the dangers of populism.
The truth is irrelevant to the charlatans at WSN. When the paper’s staff reached out to me for this piece, I offered them a quote and requested that I see my remarks before publication. The writer agreed and then subsequently declined to keep to her word. When I asked to respond, WSN wouldn’t give me this opportunity.
This incident is just another example of how WSN prioritizes the coddling of young minds over authentic journalistic inquiry and First Amendment liberties. One would be mistaken in thinking that the premier student-run publication on NYU’s campus would be dedicated to freedom of the press and diversity of thought. Instead, WSN seems to be actively trying to suppress content from competitors. This is precisely why NYU’s student body needs a new student-run publication. The hegemonic illiberal progressivism on campus embodied by WSN must be opposed. If the already intense pressure to submit to the prevailing dogma is left unchecked, NYU will sink further into the abyss of conformity and cease to fulfill its motto, “to persevere and to excel.” The Washington Square Post will do everything it can to avert this tragedy.