The New Holy Progressive Inquisition
by David Richardson
The Roman Catholic Church established the Holy Office of the Inquisition in the 12th century. The Holy Office’s purpose was to identify and prosecute non-conformist religious thought, such as the beliefs of the Cathars. But the beliefs that the Holy Office prosecuted also included opposition to infant baptism and unauthorized cosmological views. Today, most people know about Galileo's trouble with the Inquisition, but many would find it curious that Church authorities also prosecuted and even executed dissenters for insisting that only adults, not infants, could qualify for the sacrament of baptism. They might also find it surprising that the techniques established by the Inquisition have remained popular among autocrats in the modern world, as Cullen Murphy's scholarly work, God's Jury, documents.
Modern scholars, such as Murphy, recognize the authoritarian purpose of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages. It was a device to maintain by intimidation the Church’s political and social dominance. It was so successful that the technique has been eagerly imitated by dictators and autocratic regimes ever since, even in modern times—Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, Cuba, Cambodia, etc. But democracies are not immune. In the United States, what we are currently seeing on many college campuses is the emergence of a new Holy Office of the Progressive Inquisition. It has the same purpose as the Inquisition established by the Holy See. Consequently, it assumes its own righteousness without the hint of a supporting moral theory, logical coherence, or sense of humor.
Jeffrey Herbst and Geoffrey R. Stone recently observed in the Chronicle of Higher Education (06/05/17) that college progressives and minorities (students, administrators, and staff) have excluded from their campuses speakers who hold views that they don’t like (e.g., Evergreen State University). Some of the protests have openly condemned free speech and free assembly, and these ideas now drive the nationwide polarization around the First Amendment. The authors point out that the restrictions on free speech that these protestors advocate would inevitably apply to their own freedom of expression. That contradiction appears to be lost on progressives. Consequently, we can no longer assume freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and even freedom of religion to be socially unassailable values—the Bill of Rights notwithstanding. In short, we have barbarians in our midst who demand the end to civil liberties in the name of social justice. It is an amazing contradiction.
Today, the Progressive Inquisition seeks to promote a radical ideology, one that celebrates victimization, that divides by class distinctions, that despises America’s history and the nation’s political foundations, that demands uniformity of belief, and that punishes heretics. The irrational abuse endured by Alan Dershowitz, a liberal attorney and life-long Democrat, supports this contention. For questioning the legal foundations of the current investigation into the possibility of Trump’s collusion with Russian agents, he has been condemned and marginalized. This is not simply disagreement. It's a matter of heresy. Dershowitz has actually been called corrupt for expressing his views. And he is not the only victim. College presidents and faculty members have lost their jobs because of their heresy, as judged by the Progressive Inquisition. At Claremont McKenna College, progressive college protestors scornfully labeled dissenting minority students and faculty as “shady persons of color” (SPOC). Recently, Keith Ellison, the Deputy Chair of the Democratic Party's National Committee, warned Democratic lawmakers that they would have trouble should they waiver in their support of the Party's immigration dogma. All of this exemplifies sheer political intimidation. No American should want these progressive activists to become more politically powerful. Should that happen, dissenters on campus and in Washington would face more than ridicule or loss of employment. They would burn tied to stakes.
The analogy of the current progressive movement to the Inquisition of the Catholic Church is apt. Both may be characterized as imperious and authoritarian in their mission. Progressives want to silence opposition, not to debate issues. That is why they protest the right of fellow students to hear speakers expressing different views. Moreover, the use of the IRS under Obama to persecute conservative voices provides additional and chilling proof of that claim. So does the lack of viewpoint diversity within the faculties of our colleges and universities. A Progressive Inquisition is underway, and this should alarm liberals and conservatives alike. In the name of diversity, this Inquisition seeks to purge from the public square all dissenting voices. And like the Inquisition that judged Galileo, it is humorless and self-important. It will not take the Bill of Rights seriously. If allowed, it will knock such obstacles aside to reach its aims and then celebrate the death of civil liberties as a great moral achievement.