The silence before speech

There was a time when the university understood itself as a place where one ran the risk of being wrong. Not because error was celebrated, but because truth could not emerge without collision, without friction, without the discomfort of dissenting thought. The ideal of the academy was never consensus. On the contrary, its legitimacy derived precisely from its ability to question existing certainties.

Today, that spirit appears to be shifting, including within the Netherlands, a country that has long understood itself as a liberal and pluralistic democracy.

Not abruptly, not through censorship committees or explicit prohibitions, but more subtly — almost atmospherically. The contemporary university is increasingly characterised by a peculiar form of moral predictability. Within lectures, research groups and public academic debates, there exist self-evident positions and socially dangerous positions. Certain convictions function as implicit proof of intellectual sensitivity; others immediately arouse suspicion.

It is precisely here that the paradox of the modern academy resides. Never before has the university spoken so insistently of diversity, inclusivity and safety, while at the same time the space for ideological deviation appears to narrow. The contemporary university accepts many forms of difference — provided they move within the same moral grammar. This tendency has become increasingly visible within Dutch universities and cultural institutions.

Cultural diversity is celebrated. Diversity of sexual identity is protected. Different lifestyles are recognised. Yet diversity of worldviews proves considerably more complicated. Conservative intuitions, cultural traditionalism or politically right-leaning convictions are no longer treated within parts of academic culture primarily as intellectual positions, but as moral signals. Not merely mistaken, but suspect.

The consequences rarely manifest themselves in overt repression. The modern university no longer requires explicit censorship. Social conditioning works more efficiently. Students quickly learn which statements generate applause and which produce silence. Which words open careers and which evoke associations best avoided. The fear is not necessarily disciplinary punishment, but social classification.

A student who identifies as progressive generally moves safely within the moral centre of academic culture. A student who identifies as conservative, or even merely centre-right, is often psychologically interpreted before being intellectually heard. The debate thereby shifts imperceptibly from arguments to intentions. No longer is the central question solely what someone thinks, but why they think it.

This mechanism is all the more striking because universities historically understood themselves as defenders of intellectual pluralism. A society that renders dissenting opinions socially impossible ultimately becomes not only intolerant, but intellectually weaker. Even an incorrect opinion possesses value precisely because it compels truth continually to justify itself. A conviction never challenged hardens easily into dogma.

Yet the contemporary university increasingly appears uncomfortable with precisely the uncertainty that once constituted its reason for existence. Moral convictions are no longer defended merely as political preferences, but as necessary conditions of decency itself. Thus emerges a culture in which deviation appears not simply as error, but as a lack of empathy, civilisation or historical consciousness.

Within many intellectual milieus, conservatism is not primarily refuted intellectually, but rendered culturally suspect. The conservative no longer appears as a participant within the same philosophical field, but as a representative of outdated structures, hidden resentment or moral........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)