Let’s Talk Ourselves Into Being Optimistic! 6 Reasons to Be Hopeful about the Sorry State of Free Expression

Plus an update on the “Coddling” sneak peek at CU Boulder

I’m pleased to report that our special screening of The Coddling of the American Mind at CU Boulder went really well. The audience received the film enthusiastically, the Q&A period was very active, and plenty of people stayed late to ask my wife and me questions. 

We’re grateful to Prof. Daniel Jacobson for inviting us and for the stimulating experience he and his team put together. 

The day after the screening we headed to a meet-and-greet. There we had the pleasure of interacting with some undergrads and recent grads. They asked many questions, and so did we. 

We asked about the prevalence of mental health problems among their peers. They all reported high levels of anxiety and depression among their friends. I’ve yet to encounter a 20-something who says otherwise. 

I often ask college students and recent grads to guesstimate the percentage of true believers on their campus. The most vocal activists receive the most attention from the university, the media, and others. But how well do they represent the student body?

The CU students and recent grads placed the percentage of true believers at around 10%, which is consistent with what I’ve heard from other students and grads around the nation. 

That also roughly reflects the nation. More in Common’s “Hidden Tribes” survey notes that “progressive activists” comprise only 8% of America. 

The most conservative group of Americans represents a comparable share of the total (6%), but “devoted conservatives” aren’t as culturally influential as their counterparts on the left. 

So on campus and off, progressive activists have the power to suppress points of view they don’t like. They frighten university presidents and corporate bosses, but most people—regardless of age, race or political affiliation—aren’t keen on their hysterical tactics. The progressive activists don’t even represent most on the left. 

I had that in mind when I was asked: Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future? 

I wouldn’t say I’m necessarily optimistic about reviving a culture of free speech, at least not in the near term. 

But I want to be optimistic. 

So here are some reasons I keep in mind when I’m trying to talk myself into being positive. 

1. 92% of Americans aren’t progressive activists. On campus or off, most people just don’t agree with this relatively small slice of America. Maybe someday instead of buckling to Twitter yet again, a university president or corporate exec will pause and reflect on the smallness of the demo that’s causing so much fuss. 

2. It’s becoming more and more socially acceptable to skip college. Companies in fields ranging from tech to construction now offer alternatives such as certifications and apprenticeships. 

3. Nearly everyone mocked the sensitivity readers in the Roald Dahl dustup. Who called the Inclusivity Ambassadors, “smooth-talking authoritarians”? Not some righty. Not some libertarian. It was The Nation’s Katha Pollitt. (Read her excellent plea for sanity here.)

4. Substack showcases free speech lefties. Many of the most popular Substacks are run by left-of-center writers who champion free expression. These days when even the ACLU is getting weak-kneed on speech and college students chant lines like, “Your free speech hides clean white sheets!” Substack stands as an important reminder—free expression should be a bipartisan issue. 

5. Netflix stood up for Dave Chappelle and free expression. Netflix might make it easier for other entertainment execs to stand strong.

6. The New York Times stood up to the mob. Remember that open letter the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) sent to the Times in February? The one that ripped the paper’s “irresponsible, biased coverage of transgender people,” the one signed by more than 100 prominent people and organizations including filmmaker Judd Apatow, actress Lena Dunham, and comedian Hannah Gadsby?

   The reaction from the Times was much different this year compared to three years ago.

   Tablet’s James Kirchick explains:

Three years ago, when The New York Times published an op-ed by a sitting United States senator that was unpopular with many of its staff, the paper’s leadership crumbled to the mob, publicly disavowing the piece and forcing the editorial page editor to resign. Fortunately, in reaction to this latest contretemps, the Times brass have responded rationally. [In February], showing the spine that his predecessor Dean Baquet lacked, Executive Editor Joe Kahn sent a tersely worded memo to staff stating that the paper does “not welcome, and will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums.”

Ted Balaker is a filmmaker, and former network newser and think tanker. His recent work includes “Little Pink House”starring Catherine Keener and Jeanne Tripplehorn, “Can We Take a Joke?” featuring Gilbert Gottfried and Penn Jillette, and a forthcoming feature documentary based on the bestselling book, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt.