This is a good essay and an important one, but I think it completely ignores one very important aspect of the present social discourse.
It is unfortunate, but some people in the world are politically weak and some are powerful. The weak are often marginalized and/or treated unfairly in various ways. Often the only way the weak can gain strength or political power is through common action. Common action first makes the weak much stronger but also, if well applied it confronts the strong with a moral choice that they cannot escape. Thus, often the politically strong join these common actions simply because it is the right thing to do.
Common action however requires conformism.
It is all fine to be a cool independently minded non-conformist constantly questioning the rules when you are politically powerful. But when you are politically repressed that would probably land you in jail and very quickly. So what is the protection of the politically weak -- to immediately and collectively protest and threaten to damage society if one of them is unfairly hurt. This of course requires iron conformism.
It is not always pretty. It is in fact often ugly. For example, I have noticed that in many countries, the politicians that represent a certain politically repressed minority are often the most corrupt in the country. They are often filthy rich while the community they represent is wallowing in poverty. Why? Because the minority community knows that to split their vote means to be run over. They know that they have to conform and act as one to protect themselves. Thus, they overlook the corruption of their leaders in the interest of common protection. In many minority communities to vote against the chosen candidate is not a sign of individualism but of treason against one's family and friends and neighbors. Not showing up at a protest the community has decided to participate in is treated similarly.
Paul's article is a little vague, so I am not sure exactly what he is talking about when he is lamenting the rise of conformism in US universities. But it is quite possible that this rise of conformism is there to protect vulnerable or politically weak people as much as anything else. University faculty tend to be politically powerful, but because they have relatively secure jobs they often have the freedom of conscience and morality (something many people do not have), and thus they often side with the politically weak.
So, if we want to make our society more safe for non-conformists and presentation of different ideas, we have to make it more fair. This sounds counter-intuitive but it is true. A lot of the so called taboo ideas are taboo because they are connected to a long history of horrible repression and perhaps even a present state of repression, and there is a very real fear that expressing such an idea will continue said repression.
So for example, take the idea that a certain minority race is inherently less intelligent than average. Currently this idea is pretty much taboo. One may argue that in a society that better tolerates non-conformism such an idea even if disliked or even if wrong will get a fair hearing, perhaps be researched etc. But in society where this minority race is politically disadvantaged merely mentioning this idea will result in further repression. People of that race will have difficulty getting jobs as they will automatically be assumed to be stupid. Research will be conducted but at least some of the research will be culturally biased and carefully tailored to reach predetermined conclusions. This is not theoretical. It has pretty much happened already multiple times. See, for example, Jay Coulds excellent book "The Mismeasure of Man".
But if one suggest an idea that does not carry a history of repression with it, such as linking intelligence to an astrological sign or to birth-weight the idea will not be considered taboo and may be fairly researched.
If we can imagine a fair society where someone's race is as inconsequential as their astrological sign, perhaps there would not be that much race related taboos. But that is not yet the case.
It is unfortunate, but some people in the world are politically weak and some are powerful. The weak are often marginalized and/or treated unfairly in various ways. Often the only way the weak can gain strength or political power is through common action. Common action first makes the weak much stronger but also, if well applied it confronts the strong with a moral choice that they cannot escape. Thus, often the politically strong join these common actions simply because it is the right thing to do.
Common action however requires conformism.
It is all fine to be a cool independently minded non-conformist constantly questioning the rules when you are politically powerful. But when you are politically repressed that would probably land you in jail and very quickly. So what is the protection of the politically weak -- to immediately and collectively protest and threaten to damage society if one of them is unfairly hurt. This of course requires iron conformism.
It is not always pretty. It is in fact often ugly. For example, I have noticed that in many countries, the politicians that represent a certain politically repressed minority are often the most corrupt in the country. They are often filthy rich while the community they represent is wallowing in poverty. Why? Because the minority community knows that to split their vote means to be run over. They know that they have to conform and act as one to protect themselves. Thus, they overlook the corruption of their leaders in the interest of common protection. In many minority communities to vote against the chosen candidate is not a sign of individualism but of treason against one's family and friends and neighbors. Not showing up at a protest the community has decided to participate in is treated similarly.
Paul's article is a little vague, so I am not sure exactly what he is talking about when he is lamenting the rise of conformism in US universities. But it is quite possible that this rise of conformism is there to protect vulnerable or politically weak people as much as anything else. University faculty tend to be politically powerful, but because they have relatively secure jobs they often have the freedom of conscience and morality (something many people do not have), and thus they often side with the politically weak.
So, if we want to make our society more safe for non-conformists and presentation of different ideas, we have to make it more fair. This sounds counter-intuitive but it is true. A lot of the so called taboo ideas are taboo because they are connected to a long history of horrible repression and perhaps even a present state of repression, and there is a very real fear that expressing such an idea will continue said repression.
So for example, take the idea that a certain minority race is inherently less intelligent than average. Currently this idea is pretty much taboo. One may argue that in a society that better tolerates non-conformism such an idea even if disliked or even if wrong will get a fair hearing, perhaps be researched etc. But in society where this minority race is politically disadvantaged merely mentioning this idea will result in further repression. People of that race will have difficulty getting jobs as they will automatically be assumed to be stupid. Research will be conducted but at least some of the research will be culturally biased and carefully tailored to reach predetermined conclusions. This is not theoretical. It has pretty much happened already multiple times. See, for example, Jay Coulds excellent book "The Mismeasure of Man".
But if one suggest an idea that does not carry a history of repression with it, such as linking intelligence to an astrological sign or to birth-weight the idea will not be considered taboo and may be fairly researched.
If we can imagine a fair society where someone's race is as inconsequential as their astrological sign, perhaps there would not be that much race related taboos. But that is not yet the case.