Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article that is puzzling,
coming as it did from someone of his caliber. Published on November 26, 2015 in
National Review Online, the article came under the long title of: Progressive
Faculty and Administrators Deserve All of the Blame for the Recent Unrest on
Campus.
The point that Hanson is making – and illustrating with
numerous historical examples – is that the adoption of liberal ideals breads
the kind of radicals who turn against the liberals for not being radical
enough. And this, he says, is what's happening at this time on America 's
campuses.
He expands on those ideas and comes to the following
conclusion: Professors have privileged diversity over unity. Faculties focused
on America 's
sins than its virtues. Both fixated on color of skin rather than content of
character. The curriculum was watered down, standards were lowered and students
appeased. Now they are reaping the liberal whirlwind that they alone have sown.
Had he written a short blog citing those historical
examples, and had he gone from there to make the conclusion that he did, he
would have written a praiseworthy piece. Unfortunately, however, he chose to go
further than that and ventured into a realm where his analytic prowess fell
short of his historical acumen. Sadly, this is what turned his work into a
puzzle of dubious quality.
Here is the point at which he first got on the wrong track:
“Will the University of California at Berkeley
airbrush away the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social
Policy?” With this step, he opened the door for himself to wonder about the
fate of other historical figures; people like FDR, Che Guevara, Margaret
Sanger, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Robespierre, Trotsky, Lenin, Bill Ayers and
Jonathan Butler – all of whom are either reviled or cherished by today's
radicals.
The problem with taking that approach to discuss a situation
of this nature, is that the approach contributes nothing toward the
clarification of the subject matter or its solution – if solution is what's
required. A better approach would have been to separate what constitutes
legitimate demands made by the students, from what constitutes illegitimate
demands. To this end, Victor Hanson could have set-up three rubrics under which
the subject of equity would have been classified and given weight. The rubrics
would have been these: proportionality, compromise and reversal.
An example in which proportionality determines who gets what
is that of partners in a business who decide to break-up and go their separate
ways. How to decide who gets what? To answer this question you take into
account how much money each partner put into the company, and how much time
each devoted to running it. Based on this, each partner will get an equitable
portion of the business.
As to compromise, this is usually called for when there is
no way to determine who was at fault in something like a traffic accident that
has the markings of being an “Act of God.” In this case, the compromise takes
the form of a 50-50 shared responsibility – which is the ultimate compromise.
And the liabilities are shared accordingly.
Finally, there are cases in which a reversal is the
equitable thing to call for. An example would be the reverse discrimination that
the “Affirmative Action” program brings to each case. This approach is
considered legitimate by most people as long as the intent and the
implementation are considered restitution and not retribution.
That is acceptable because the descendents of those who
lived at the expense of “others,” agree to forgo a few of the things they
inherited so that the descendents of the “others” receive compensation for what
their forefathers were deprived of, and had no chance to bequeath to their
descendents. Justice is served this way.
With this under his belt, Victor Hanson could have looked at
each item on the list of the grievances that were mentioned by the students,
and determined under which rubric it should go. From there, he would have
judged how to adjudicate each claim … and his judgment would have been wise and
equitable.