Perspective 115. Attacks on Diversity: A Defense of Liberty?
Right-wing activists opposed to LGBTQ rights, critical race theory, and abortion claim to be defending liberty, especially religious liberty. People should be free, they say, to discriminate in favor of moral principles in which they believe. Is this claim consistent with time-hallowed concepts of liberty?
No. In fact the direct opposite is the case. Classical political philosophers would have no trouble labeling these activists themselves as the real threat to liberty.
In perspective – this site has invoked both historical perspectives and comparative perspectives across the globe. To this is now added the perspective of classical thought as recorded in the great works of seminal thinkers. On liberty, the classical definition is that of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty.
Mill argued that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Moral indignation is not enough. Being offensive to others is not a crime. Thoughts and speech are sacrosanct, and so are actions until and unless they inflict harm on others.
“Over himself, over his body and mind,” Mill adds, “the individual is sovereign.” With contemporary updating to “herself” and “her body,” this deprives anti-abortionists of the right to interfere. A woman’s decision involves herself, her family, and her medical providers; no harm to others is involved.
The same principle applies to the widespread efforts to forbid gender-affirming medical treatment to those who choose it. No government should be allowed to restrict their freedom to choose.
The same applies to the broad assault on academic freedom. In a dozen states bills have been introduced to restrict what teachers can or cannot say about slavery. Since last year over 150 bills have been introduced to restrict speech on racial issues, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
In Florida, leader of this “anti-woke” campaign, Governor De Santis has essentially taken over New College of Florida, formerly a bastion of diversity and independence. Faculty have been prohibited from serving as advisors to unfavored campus groups. Courses on racism, sexism, and oppression have been dropped. A number of faculty members, clearly not of the “right type,” have been denied tenure.
And the bleating apostles of such measures pretend to oppose “the heavy hand of government?"
Those of a libertarian bent invoke the cause of liberty to fight the regulation of powerful economic agents. But these agents are in a position to cause widespread harm. What would Mill say? “Trade is a social act,” he wrote.
On other topics as well, classic political philosophy would pull the rug out from under today’s reactionaries. Regulation of disinformation? Just ask how many people have died because of the anti-vaxxers and their ilk. Discrimination against the LGBTQ community and others? Discrimination is in its very core an act that causes harm to others, and government has a right to act against it.
It is interesting to note that On Liberty was published the same year (1859) as Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species and Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities. A great year for messages, however imperfectly converted to practice.