A couple of weeks ago I accidentally wandered into a very conservative bookstore, the sort of place I didn't know actually existed. I was fascinated. I had to leave with something, some token of the experience, and so I bought this book and another in the same series, mostly because the store only took cash and I didn't have enough cash on me to buy much else in the place.
I got around to reading this tonight and am happy to say I didn't hate it. It's a very short book, so the author doesn't dig too deep on anything, but most of what he says is fair, more or less on the mark. He explores the trend of restricting speeches on American campuses. He talks about the "disinvitation" movement, wherein students and faculty protest to get speakers they don't like "disinvited" from the campus. And he tears into "trigger warnings" and the whole notion that college campuses are a place where students should feel intellectually comfortable.
His discussion of trigger warnings strikes me as mostly dead on. His discussion of "disinvitations" strikes me as a little less dead on; I'll have to say I agree with him that it can often go too far, but I also think that students and faculty have every right to make their opinions known and to speak out against using campus space for peddlers of hate. It seems perfectly fine to me to say that such and such campus shouldn't be used as a platform for people to showcase their hate speech. Maybe in a longer book the author would be more nuanced and say the same thing; here, he's limited in space, and is pointing to the overall trend, and I suppose he's close to the mark most of the time.
Where I disagree the most is in his contention that this is a new trend. He seems to think that this is mostly a recent phenomenon, that until recently campuses and the American public in a general sense were open to all kinds of ideas. To his credit, he makes an effort to say that this isn't only a problem of the left trying to censor the right. But in spite of that acknowledgement, his vision here seems to be skewed by his own partisanship.
He laments the recent rise of freedom from speech, apparently forgetting the long history of those whose voices weren't allowed to be heard at all. The history of people on the left being jailed for their speech, beaten for their speech. He laments Brendan Eich being forced out of his job for donating money to groups pushing Proposition 8 in California, but doesn't seem terribly bothered that the voices of gay men and women were shut down for most of our country's history, that those who spoke up too loudly lost their jobs, and their families, and their pretty much everything else, often including their lives.
It's great that Lukianoff and other conservatives are championing free speech. As a group, though, they're late to the party. This isn't a new trend. What's new is simply the fact that the ugliness occasionally affects the people they like instead of the people they have counted as the "others" for so long. While what they are saying is more or less accurate, their timing is nauseating, makes it hard to swallow this stuff.