This concept in particular needs more visibility in the broader culture. It's not only Stanley who doesn't make a distinction between fascism and right-wing authoritarianism, but almost the entire progressive left.
"fascism was a weird melding of left-wing and right-wing ideas, combining nationalism, racism, and socialism in a way that won more adherents than it ever should have — especially among intellectuals and, distressingly, on German campuses. Meanwhile, right-wing authoritarianism is basically the story of the human race prior to the 20th century, when left-wing authoritarianism started to become more prominent."
Totally on point, Greg. Regarding the Wolfson interview, that phenomenon has been absolutely driving me crazy: the denial that there's any sort of leftist indoctrination on college campuses, followed by words and actions that completely contradict that denial. The lack of self awareness is off the charts, and I've been meaning to write an article on it. It reminds of the quote (can't remember who it was) that says something like ideology is like breath, we don't notice our own.
It goes way back. There has been video floating around of an old Firing Line where William Buckley spoke with David Susskind about bias in media and academia, and Susskind basically said that it’s not bias, it’s just that when you are in a profession that makes you think carefully, you naturally end up a progressive. This was in 1966!
No doubt, and he says some ridiculous things later on in the interview, including attempting to minimize Jackie Robinson's experience of racism as the first Black MLB player.
Greg. well done again (all these thoughts). You are doing extremely important work. More power to you and thank God for FIRE. Free speech is a simple but radical concept and so many people are losing clarity over it. It is a bedrock of freedom and human progress.
From the opening paragraph, it's clear that the NYT still doesn't understand the idea of acting from principle. It's all too common these days for partisans to assume that all process arguments are insincere and that everyone acts from partisan motivation.
I appreciated this piece because it highlights how academia often damages its own reputation — not just from outside political attacks, but through its own inconsistencies and blind spots.
My recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education looked at a different but related problem: when academics rushed to “fact-check” claims about transgender mouse research without checking the facts themselves. What started as a political talking point turned into a viral meme because experts, eager to mock politicians on the Right, got the basic science wrong themselves.
The result? Public trust erodes from both directions. Whether it’s inconsistent defenses of free speech (as FIRE points out) or sloppy, partisan-sounding fact-checking (as I describe), the public sees the same thing: institutions that claim rigor and neutrality but sometimes act with neither. Mocking people, while getting the "facts" wrong themselves, just further fuels the idea that academics are elitist and their science can't be trusted.
If academics wants to rebuild credibility, they needs to be consistent — in defending speech, in checking facts, and in admitting when it gets things wrong.
Just in terms of the Online Harms Act and fascism in Canada there is currently no version of the Bill tabled pending the new government taking a “fresh look” at the legislation. I suspect that we will not see the life imprisonment for hate speech component resurrected…
It’s a fine article. As a point of interest, to me, my support for FIRE ended with FIRE’s support for pro-Palestinian demonstrators on campus. The demonstrators do not share FIRE’s distinction between protected speech and action. Incitation is not merely speech, but exhortation to unlawful action. As such, it is not protected. Jewish students have been attacked or physically impeded from attending classes by protestors FIRE seeks to enable.
I very much enjoy reading about FIRE's work and appreciate your principles - especially as I frequently back-slide in person, by cheering the "it's just consequences not cancellation" when someone I consider unprincipled and vicious gets the same treatment they were keen to see their opponents getting. I need those reminders that there's a UNIVERSAL principle to be defended here. I will still back-slide, only human.
[Falsely implying that the recent EO is unconstitutional because of the preamble to it, when the substantive part of the EO clearly takes pains NOT to be unconstitutional; it’s a prosecutorial discretion order about actions that are illegal on their own.
The guts of the piece from last year are great, in fact. It’s the Editor’s Note and the failure to mention that the EO as written are not unconstitutional that are partisan spin.]
[A cheap, dishonest piece trying to claim that censorship on campus on the right is roughly equal with that on the left, and not just in 2025, but in 2023 and 2024 as well!
Factually almost exactly opposite of what you note here and have done for a few years now.
Given the dishonest counting methodology used to make its points, the title of this piece really should have been:
“The ‘vibe’ shift in FIRE reporting methodology and spin about campus censorship.”]
If FIRE’s reputation for not taking partisan sides is important to you, then perhaps you shouldn’t publish pieces that are clearly about taking partisan sides…
Does anyone think this matters? Apart from academia who gives a rat's ass? The squabbles and power plays are a total waste of time. R's lose next farce in 2026 and the D's reverse everything and laugh as they cash in. Tell me something that matters, like killing innocent people in wars that change NOTHING.
This concept in particular needs more visibility in the broader culture. It's not only Stanley who doesn't make a distinction between fascism and right-wing authoritarianism, but almost the entire progressive left.
"fascism was a weird melding of left-wing and right-wing ideas, combining nationalism, racism, and socialism in a way that won more adherents than it ever should have — especially among intellectuals and, distressingly, on German campuses. Meanwhile, right-wing authoritarianism is basically the story of the human race prior to the 20th century, when left-wing authoritarianism started to become more prominent."
Totally on point, Greg. Regarding the Wolfson interview, that phenomenon has been absolutely driving me crazy: the denial that there's any sort of leftist indoctrination on college campuses, followed by words and actions that completely contradict that denial. The lack of self awareness is off the charts, and I've been meaning to write an article on it. It reminds of the quote (can't remember who it was) that says something like ideology is like breath, we don't notice our own.
It goes way back. There has been video floating around of an old Firing Line where William Buckley spoke with David Susskind about bias in media and academia, and Susskind basically said that it’s not bias, it’s just that when you are in a profession that makes you think carefully, you naturally end up a progressive. This was in 1966!
Wow! I just looked up the interview. Liberal condescension indeed goes back further than I thought: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UeSeZlXxqc
To be fair, Buckley was always pretty smug himself! :-) Long may he wave.
No doubt, and he says some ridiculous things later on in the interview, including attempting to minimize Jackie Robinson's experience of racism as the first Black MLB player.
Greg. well done again (all these thoughts). You are doing extremely important work. More power to you and thank God for FIRE. Free speech is a simple but radical concept and so many people are losing clarity over it. It is a bedrock of freedom and human progress.
From the opening paragraph, it's clear that the NYT still doesn't understand the idea of acting from principle. It's all too common these days for partisans to assume that all process arguments are insincere and that everyone acts from partisan motivation.
What kind of moron would go to Jason Stanley for a quote about anything more serious than a head cold?
Only Jason Stanley himself.
I appreciated this piece because it highlights how academia often damages its own reputation — not just from outside political attacks, but through its own inconsistencies and blind spots.
My recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education looked at a different but related problem: when academics rushed to “fact-check” claims about transgender mouse research without checking the facts themselves. What started as a political talking point turned into a viral meme because experts, eager to mock politicians on the Right, got the basic science wrong themselves.
Here it is, for those interested:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-great-transgender-mouse-debate
The result? Public trust erodes from both directions. Whether it’s inconsistent defenses of free speech (as FIRE points out) or sloppy, partisan-sounding fact-checking (as I describe), the public sees the same thing: institutions that claim rigor and neutrality but sometimes act with neither. Mocking people, while getting the "facts" wrong themselves, just further fuels the idea that academics are elitist and their science can't be trusted.
If academics wants to rebuild credibility, they needs to be consistent — in defending speech, in checking facts, and in admitting when it gets things wrong.
Just in terms of the Online Harms Act and fascism in Canada there is currently no version of the Bill tabled pending the new government taking a “fresh look” at the legislation. I suspect that we will not see the life imprisonment for hate speech component resurrected…
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-taking-fresh-look-at-online-harms-bill-says-justice-minister-sean-fraser-1.7573791
It’s a fine article. As a point of interest, to me, my support for FIRE ended with FIRE’s support for pro-Palestinian demonstrators on campus. The demonstrators do not share FIRE’s distinction between protected speech and action. Incitation is not merely speech, but exhortation to unlawful action. As such, it is not protected. Jewish students have been attacked or physically impeded from attending classes by protestors FIRE seeks to enable.
I very much enjoy reading about FIRE's work and appreciate your principles - especially as I frequently back-slide in person, by cheering the "it's just consequences not cancellation" when someone I consider unprincipled and vicious gets the same treatment they were keen to see their opponents getting. I need those reminders that there's a UNIVERSAL principle to be defended here. I will still back-slide, only human.
Excellent piece.
I admire the determination to not take sides that you reinforce in this piece.
Sadly, however, two recent FIRE pieces do not adhere to this standard at all, but are blatant spin designed to make the right look bad:
https://expression.fire.org/p/your-burning-questions-on-flag-burning
[Falsely implying that the recent EO is unconstitutional because of the preamble to it, when the substantive part of the EO clearly takes pains NOT to be unconstitutional; it’s a prosecutorial discretion order about actions that are illegal on their own.
The guts of the piece from last year are great, in fact. It’s the Editor’s Note and the failure to mention that the EO as written are not unconstitutional that are partisan spin.]
Even worse was this:
https://expression.fire.org/p/the-vibe-shift-in-campus-censorship
[A cheap, dishonest piece trying to claim that censorship on campus on the right is roughly equal with that on the left, and not just in 2025, but in 2023 and 2024 as well!
Factually almost exactly opposite of what you note here and have done for a few years now.
Given the dishonest counting methodology used to make its points, the title of this piece really should have been:
“The ‘vibe’ shift in FIRE reporting methodology and spin about campus censorship.”]
If FIRE’s reputation for not taking partisan sides is important to you, then perhaps you shouldn’t publish pieces that are clearly about taking partisan sides…
Bothsiding fascism
Does anyone think this matters? Apart from academia who gives a rat's ass? The squabbles and power plays are a total waste of time. R's lose next farce in 2026 and the D's reverse everything and laugh as they cash in. Tell me something that matters, like killing innocent people in wars that change NOTHING.
Academia is where the politicians of tomorrow come from. There is no hope of changing anything permanently if we don’t deal with academia.