This is what needs to change. This kind of unconscious framing of political goals. Women’s bodily autonomy is not an “ideal” it’s not some extreme ask, it’s the absolute baseline of an equitable democratic society and we need to discuss it in that way.
This is essentially what the author of this article is suggesting in regards to DEI, but it’s a concept that can be applied to much of our public politics;
Instead of accepting that diversity statements limit free speech, institutions should ask why an academic institution would hire professors who equate DEI and good pedagogy for all students to a political stance? There is nothing political about wanting professional teachers to hone their craft in a way that invites all students into academia.
Likewise, the discussion should not be “how do we do the impossible of catering to anti-choice proponents while also progressing to a more equitable society?” You can’t. It’s a non-starter, you cannot entertain the idea of stripping women of bodily autonomy and also have an equitable society.
Instead, we need to change the frame around the discussion to highlight that being pro-choice is the only equitable solution for both sides of the issue. You let anti-choice people choose to not have abortions, and you allow pro-choice people to make their own choice about their own body. It’s about how we allow these topics to be discussed, currently we allow the extreme views of the right a legitimacy they do not warrant.
I’m proposing that anyone who purports to believe in the principles of democratic, free, equitable society needs to be more radical in the context we are currently in. So not progressives, but liberal democrats need to accept that they simply cannot compromise their way to a better society when they’re beginning the debate of these topics within a frame that favors a far right view. It’s not a “centrist” position to meet half-way between fascism and democracy.
Bodily autonomy is not extreme, forcing women and girls to give birth is. Having a functioning, publically funded healthcare system is not extreme. People choosing to die of cancer rather than saddle their loved ones with medical debt is. Teaching that slavery was morally wrong and is at the root of many material and systemic inequalities in the present day is not extreme. Teaching that it was no big deal is.
And yet, what do we see in our discourse among democrats? That progressives are always asking “too much”, that by asking for the baseline they’re asking for “perfect” and are just as extreme and unrealistic as the side with the neo-nazis.
It’s nonsense. That is a perspective peddled by the right which democrats have just kind if passively accepted as the way to talk about these things.
The goal is not to negotiate with anti-choice right-wingers, it’s to reject their language and terms and instead redefine the frame in which we all discuss these topics so that we’re not doing the right’s heavy lifting for them.
About lack of possibility to accommodate both pro-life and pro-choice: so to sum it up your stance is to force them out from academia? Pro-life believe abortion is murder - argument about “equitable society” is unlikely to convince somebody that it’s okay to kill in the name of it. At the same time same person can be all in for inclusion, diversity etc. Isn’t this the perfect example of perfect being enemy of good? Radicalization is going to make this and similar groups naturally fall into opposition if you keep forcing them out (and generate a lot of “martyrs” for the cause too). How is radicalization good here?
About compromise: I’d quote you my brother’s law professor:”What is the purpose of the law system? Justice? No! It’s to maintain the order, the system which makes everything work. It is to ensure predictability.”
So are the compromises on eg. bodily autonomy morally justifiable from any perspective? No, both sides hate it. Both sides have politicians that want to be as realistic as possible to sway voters, change being just a side effect of the process.
I think what you propose (being more radical) is actually already slowly being implemented (again, by both sides) - problem is if both went with full on “we’re sure we’re right, we’ll make no step back” there would be a revolution or a civil war (no step back means also rapidly escalating reactions from opponents) and no one really wants that in political establishment or… any establishment really. Revolutions usually end in big changes one way or the other and if you’re already in establishment why risk it?
so to sum it up your stance is to force them out from academia?
It’s an idea that belongs in a theology course, or perhaps a history course. In the same way that we don’t wring our hands about not allowing people who believe in eugenics or a flat earth to “have their place” in academia. It’s fine to have one’s beliefs, but being anti-choice is at its core a spiritual position. That is the frame it should be discussed in, academically or politically.
I could believe arguing someone out of getting pregnant is “murder”, but that doesn’t mean I should be able to force everyone else to believe that.
What is the purpose of the law system? Justice? No! It’s to maintain the order
So if a group threatens violence enough they should have access to power? If I go burn down a church is that how I’m suppose to get my way on protecting bodily autonomy? That’s not orderly or just.
if both went with full on “we’re sure we’re right, we’ll make no step back” there would be a revolution or a civil war
There is only one side that continues to threaten civil war, and they do so because their beliefs and ideas are becoming less and less convincing to the majority. On the otherside civil rights activists and ethnic minorities have been getting stepped on an beat for literally generations and there was no violent revolution.
It is not a bothsides problem, it is a problem of conservativism being philosophically bankrupt.
I think what you propose (being more radical) is actually already slowly being implemented
Is it though? What we see is women losing their bodily autonomy, lgbt people being heavily legislated against and diversity measures being dismantled in academia. And we see now schools literally teaching that slavery was beneficial to black people. The real world effect is not indicative that people are becoming radically pro-human rights and pro-democracy in the way thst is described in the article. Instead we see complacency and resignation in the democratic party.
Damn it, my client crashed twice when typing here and I don’t have the heart to retype my longish answer again.
I’ll be brief, sorry
my bad, I was typing examples of how introducing law deemed radical would have negative consequences and backlash from general populace, showing how politicians use tactics to not scare the public (e.g. distraction with 9/11 to introduce more spicy parts of patriot act or sloooow meddling with electoral rules and districts so that the voter gets bored) - I diverged to general world, this is about academia and higher ed, you’re right. Even more radical stuff could be introduced here as more vocal opposing groups simply don’t care and most conservatives treat higher ed as a lost cause of sorts
This is what needs to change. This kind of unconscious framing of political goals. Women’s bodily autonomy is not an “ideal” it’s not some extreme ask, it’s the absolute baseline of an equitable democratic society and we need to discuss it in that way.
This is essentially what the author of this article is suggesting in regards to DEI, but it’s a concept that can be applied to much of our public politics;
Likewise, the discussion should not be “how do we do the impossible of catering to anti-choice proponents while also progressing to a more equitable society?” You can’t. It’s a non-starter, you cannot entertain the idea of stripping women of bodily autonomy and also have an equitable society.
Instead, we need to change the frame around the discussion to highlight that being pro-choice is the only equitable solution for both sides of the issue. You let anti-choice people choose to not have abortions, and you allow pro-choice people to make their own choice about their own body. It’s about how we allow these topics to be discussed, currently we allow the extreme views of the right a legitimacy they do not warrant.
I’m proposing that anyone who purports to believe in the principles of democratic, free, equitable society needs to be more radical in the context we are currently in. So not progressives, but liberal democrats need to accept that they simply cannot compromise their way to a better society when they’re beginning the debate of these topics within a frame that favors a far right view. It’s not a “centrist” position to meet half-way between fascism and democracy.
Bodily autonomy is not extreme, forcing women and girls to give birth is. Having a functioning, publically funded healthcare system is not extreme. People choosing to die of cancer rather than saddle their loved ones with medical debt is. Teaching that slavery was morally wrong and is at the root of many material and systemic inequalities in the present day is not extreme. Teaching that it was no big deal is.
And yet, what do we see in our discourse among democrats? That progressives are always asking “too much”, that by asking for the baseline they’re asking for “perfect” and are just as extreme and unrealistic as the side with the neo-nazis.
It’s nonsense. That is a perspective peddled by the right which democrats have just kind if passively accepted as the way to talk about these things.
The goal is not to negotiate with anti-choice right-wingers, it’s to reject their language and terms and instead redefine the frame in which we all discuss these topics so that we’re not doing the right’s heavy lifting for them.
Thank you for an in-depth answer!
About lack of possibility to accommodate both pro-life and pro-choice: so to sum it up your stance is to force them out from academia? Pro-life believe abortion is murder - argument about “equitable society” is unlikely to convince somebody that it’s okay to kill in the name of it. At the same time same person can be all in for inclusion, diversity etc. Isn’t this the perfect example of perfect being enemy of good? Radicalization is going to make this and similar groups naturally fall into opposition if you keep forcing them out (and generate a lot of “martyrs” for the cause too). How is radicalization good here?
About compromise: I’d quote you my brother’s law professor:”What is the purpose of the law system? Justice? No! It’s to maintain the order, the system which makes everything work. It is to ensure predictability.” So are the compromises on eg. bodily autonomy morally justifiable from any perspective? No, both sides hate it. Both sides have politicians that want to be as realistic as possible to sway voters, change being just a side effect of the process.
I think what you propose (being more radical) is actually already slowly being implemented (again, by both sides) - problem is if both went with full on “we’re sure we’re right, we’ll make no step back” there would be a revolution or a civil war (no step back means also rapidly escalating reactions from opponents) and no one really wants that in political establishment or… any establishment really. Revolutions usually end in big changes one way or the other and if you’re already in establishment why risk it?
It’s an idea that belongs in a theology course, or perhaps a history course. In the same way that we don’t wring our hands about not allowing people who believe in eugenics or a flat earth to “have their place” in academia. It’s fine to have one’s beliefs, but being anti-choice is at its core a spiritual position. That is the frame it should be discussed in, academically or politically.
I could believe arguing someone out of getting pregnant is “murder”, but that doesn’t mean I should be able to force everyone else to believe that.
So if a group threatens violence enough they should have access to power? If I go burn down a church is that how I’m suppose to get my way on protecting bodily autonomy? That’s not orderly or just.
There is only one side that continues to threaten civil war, and they do so because their beliefs and ideas are becoming less and less convincing to the majority. On the otherside civil rights activists and ethnic minorities have been getting stepped on an beat for literally generations and there was no violent revolution.
It is not a bothsides problem, it is a problem of conservativism being philosophically bankrupt.
Is it though? What we see is women losing their bodily autonomy, lgbt people being heavily legislated against and diversity measures being dismantled in academia. And we see now schools literally teaching that slavery was beneficial to black people. The real world effect is not indicative that people are becoming radically pro-human rights and pro-democracy in the way thst is described in the article. Instead we see complacency and resignation in the democratic party.
Damn it, my client crashed twice when typing here and I don’t have the heart to retype my longish answer again.
I’ll be brief, sorry
my bad, I was typing examples of how introducing law deemed radical would have negative consequences and backlash from general populace, showing how politicians use tactics to not scare the public (e.g. distraction with 9/11 to introduce more spicy parts of patriot act or sloooow meddling with electoral rules and districts so that the voter gets bored) - I diverged to general world, this is about academia and higher ed, you’re right. Even more radical stuff could be introduced here as more vocal opposing groups simply don’t care and most conservatives treat higher ed as a lost cause of sorts