When “All Views Are Welcome” Meets the Real World
In 2018, I wrote my first long-form blog post and a lecture outline addressing media bias, cultural contempt for rural America, and the narrowing range of acceptable viewpoints in higher education. The writing was raw, personal, and direct. I believed—perhaps naïvely—that if I explained who I was, how I lived, worked, failed, and succeeded, understanding would follow.
I shared that work with leaders at colleges and universities, including the president of William & Mary. I was not invited to speak.
Eight years later, I understand the moment more clearly—not because my views have softened, but because experience has sharpened them.
For transparency and historical record, the original 2018 piece remains available here, unchanged:
👉 Original essay (2018):
https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1303156725583394267/7866210882328568973
What follows is not a correction of that work, nor an apology for it. It is an update—written with the benefit of time, restraint, and a clearer understanding of how institutions actually respond to dissent.
What I Believed Then
In 2018, I believed that higher education still functioned primarily as a forum for inquiry. I believed that universities, when presented with a thoughtful challenge to prevailing narratives, would respond with curiosity—even disagreement—rather than avoidance. I believed that “diversity of viewpoints” meant what it said.
I believed that if I framed conservative, rural, and small-business perspectives clearly—without shouting, without caricature—they would be treated as legitimate contributions to the conversation.
That belief was sincere. It was also incomplete.
What I Understand Now
The issue was never clarity.
The issue was courage.
Institutions do not struggle to understand conservative arguments. They struggle to platform them. Not because the arguments are incoherent or hateful, but because they introduce risk—social, reputational, and administrative.
Universities today are not neutral arenas of debate. They are risk-managed organizations. Every speaker is filtered not just for accuracy, but for predictability. The question is no longer “Is this argument defensible?” but “Will this argument create discomfort we cannot control?”
This is why institutions often say they value a “range of views,” while quietly limiting which views are granted a microphone. Diversity is welcomed—so long as it arrives already domesticated.
The Chilling Effect Is Real
A statistic I referenced years ago has only grown more troubling: a majority of college students report being afraid to voice disagreement with their professors. That fear is not irrational. Students are acutely aware that grades, recommendations, and opportunities depend on alignment—or at least silence.
This is not how intellectual confidence is built.
A classroom where students fear asking the wrong question is not a classroom producing thinkers. It is producing performers.
Socrates warned us about this long ago. The unexamined life, he argued, is not worth living—not because answers are dangerous, but because unasked questions are.
Rural and Conservative Voices Are Not “Exotic”
One of the most persistent misconceptions I tried to address in 2018—and still see today—is the idea that rural and conservative Americans represent some fringe or pathological subset of the population.
They do not.
They are small business owners, tradesmen, engineers, technicians, farmers, and operators. They run systems, build infrastructure, and maintain the physical realities upon which modern life depends—often far from the spotlight of cultural approval.
They tend to value:
Self-reliance over performative grievance
Accountability over abstraction
Delayed gratification over entitlement
These are not extremist values. They are foundational ones.
Yet they are frequently depicted in media and entertainment as backward, ignorant, or morally suspect. That caricature persists not because it is accurate, but because it is useful. It simplifies complex social divides into moral hierarchies—and hierarchies are easy to manage.
Why I Was Not Invited
With hindsight, the reason I was not invited to speak is straightforward.
I was not offering a contained critique.
I was offering examination.
I was not asking permission to exist within the framework.
I was questioning the framework itself.
Institutions can tolerate dissent that stays inside the fence. They struggle with dissent that asks who built the fence—and why.
That is not a personal grievance. It is an institutional reality.
What Has Not Changed
What has not changed—despite the passage of years—is my belief that education should form independent thinkers, not compliant ones.
Knowledge is not the same as credentialing.
Education is not the same as indoctrination.
And disagreement is not violence.
If universities truly wish to prepare students for a pluralistic society, they must allow students to encounter serious disagreement in controlled, respectful settings—not outsource that encounter to social media, where it arrives distorted and weaponized.
Shielding students from ideas does not make them safer. It makes them brittle.
A Standing Invitation
I no longer ask whether colleges are willing to hear these arguments. That question has largely been answered.
Instead, I leave a standing invitation—for any institution, faculty member, or student willing to engage in good-faith examination rather than performance.
Not to provoke.
Not to convert.
But to ask the kinds of questions that education once promised to ask.
The original 2018 essay remains as a record of what was offered then. This essay stands as a record of what has been learned since.
The door remains open.
Whether institutions choose to walk through it is no longer my concern.
No comments:
Post a Comment