How Was the American Mind Poisoned?

In 1987, Allan Bloom warned about The Closing of the American Mind. In 2018, Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff warned about The Coddling of the American Mind. And now Lawrence Eppard, Jacob Mackey, and Lee Jussim warn about The Poisoning of the American Mind. This academic trio (Eppard is professor of sociology at Shippensburg University, Mackey professor of classics at Occidental College, and Jussim professor of psychology at Rutgers) have collected 50 mostly short essays to make the case that bad trends in education and the media are getting in the way of the ability of Americans to discern truth from falsehood. 

The “guardrails” that used to restrain the publication of misleading or even blatantly false information have been largely demolished. Eppard’s opening essay, “The Golden Age of Information,” makes the point that, although people have access to more information than ever before, much of it is unreliable and even dishonest. He laments that the “guardrails” that used to restrain the publication of misleading or even blatantly false information have been largely demolished, such that it is now common for Americans to live in ideological “silos” where they receive only stories that have been curated to support a particular point of view. Many Democrats never hear anything critical of what their party does, and the same is true for Republicans. Worse yet, we have been led to believe that any dissent is not merely mistaken but immoral. Therefore, argumentation is pointless, and political victory by any means necessary over the forces of evil is essential.

It is now common for Americans to live in ideological “silos” where they receive only stories that have been curated to support a particular point of view. This situation is compounded by the fact that our universities have become very politicized. Eppard observes that “ideologically charged and empirically questionable research is being done in some academic fields around a variety of topics (perhaps most prominently about issues related to gender and race) at the same time that there is a growing tendency across academic fields to inject those findings into the public discourse.” Scholarly research used to be carefully scrutinized, and if it did not rise to a high level of proof it would not be published. But now, it’s sufficient for writers to rely on their “lived experiences” and feelings.

At the same time as many “scholars” are producing a flood of research purporting to find social and economic problems that call for the expansion of governmental control, it has become perilous for anyone to dispute them. Several of the book’s chapters discuss cases where professors were sanctioned or even terminated because they dared to question such findings. Our information ecosystem has been undermined by the way advocates can use power to silence dissent and limit the kinds of questions that may be investigated.

In his essay “The Constitution of Knowledge,” Jonathan Rauch maintains that the pillars of that constitution are eroding. For example, it was formerly accepted that any hypothesis could be advanced, but that is no longer true. Academics now face severe trouble if they argue in favor of positions that don’t fit the “progressive” worldview. He concludes, “If universities foster cultures of conformity rather than of criticism, if they traffic in politicized orthodoxies and secular religions, then the winner is not social justice but trolling. Which is all downside.”

This problem is especially acute in the social sciences. In his essay, Professor Carl Bankston notes that college leaders are complicit in the attack on knowledge by declaring that speech and research are unwelcome if they can be said to violate the “core values” of the institution. Thus have professors found themselves in hot water for, e.g., talking about the downsides of “affirmative action” or environmental policies.

However, the hard sciences are also suffering from constant attacks by those who insist that their longstanding rules are unfair and somehow prop up “white privilege.”

In a devastating essay entitled “In Defense of Merit in Science,” Professor Dorian Abbot (along with quite a few co-authors) explains the damage to science that has been done by the leftist obsession with “equity.” That is to say, what matters is not individual achievement but ensuring that we have enough “representation” in science by members of various minority groups.

Abbot writes the following:

Liberal epistemology prizes free and open inquiry, values vigorous discourse and debate, and determines the best scientific ideas by separating those that are true from those that are likely not. […] In contrast, identity-based ideologies seek to replace these core liberal principles, essential for scientific and technological advances, with principles derived from postmodernism and Critical Social Justice, which assert that modern science is “racist,” “patriarchal,” and “colonial,” and a tool of oppression rather than a tool to promote human flourishing and global common good.

Bowing to governmental pressure and ideological demands, merit is giving way. Increasingly, faculty are chosen because they have the right backgrounds, and research money is allocated to those who are investigating wasteful but politically correct projects. Researchers are now expected to practice “citation justice,” which means that they must cite a sufficient number of published papers by women and minorities. One of the latest fads is “research” into “decolonizing” various aspects of science, such as pharmacology, which entails teaching about drugs developed from folk remedies and emphasizing contributions by non-Europeans.

Perhaps the most poisonous aspect of all is the spreading idea that certain beliefs may never be questioned. Perhaps the most poisonous aspect of all is the spreading idea that certain beliefs may never be questioned.

Abbot observes, “Attempts to demonize, inflict reputational damage, or silence critics of social engineering practices by characterizing them as racists, white supremacists, or worse is particularly detrimental to the open intellectual environment in which scientific inquiry into difficult social problems thrives.”

In many academic precincts, intolerance has become a badge of honor. In his essay, Professor Jussim gives a good example. He is among the scholars who have criticized the research purporting to show that “microaggressions” against minority students and workers are both common and damaging. When confronted by skeptics, one of the leading proponents of microaggression theory, Professor Monnica Williams, replied that to argue with her position was itself a microaggression. Jussim and other writers also point out how weak concepts gain acceptance through “idea laundering.” That is the practice of getting ideological allies to approvingly cite a dubious paper so often that it becomes common knowledge.

Bad mental habits are being inculcated in the minds of students. The idea that “progressives” should not allow arguments against them to be heard (introduced in the 1960s by the radical professor Herbert Marcuse) is now widely accepted. Today, true-believing students declare that speakers they dislike will cause harm to “vulnerable” populations and seek to ban them. In many academic precincts, intolerance has become a badge of honor.

Strangely, the book itself helps to show another aspect of our poisoning, namely academic publishing. When the editors submitted the manuscript to George Mason University Press, it contained a chapter detailing long-accepted (but now “controversial”) biological differences between men and women. GMU Press said that the chapter would have to be eliminated before they’d publish. (You can read about that here.)

The Poisoning of the American Mind has, I would say, a rather narrow target. The many Americans who live in ideological silos will ignore the book, thinking that everything they do is justified by the moral imperative of beating back the assault on civilization that the other side represents. Our best hope is that some higher-education leaders will realize how deeply complicit they are in the undermining of Americans’ ability to use their minds and start looking for antidotes.

George Leef is director of external relations at the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.