Michael Hicks' simplification of the issues contributes to society's polarization
In his March 17 column, Michael Hicks claims to have identified the foundational issue that explains the current debate over ideological diversity on college campuses.
According to Professor Hicks, this debate reflects two underlying visions of the world.
One vision, according to Hicks, reflects the founding principles of the constitution and views the individual as the center of morality and law. In this view, individuals are unique and created equal and are solely responsible for their actions.
The second vision, one that Hicks attributes to Critical Theory (and its more recent variant Critical Race Theory) presumably assumes that the individual simply does not matter; rather, it is classes of people (race, gender, etc.) that are the center of law and morality.
This is an unhelpful oversimplification of both viewpoints.
Professor Hicks favors the first vision, one that places the individual at the center of the universe. What he describes is actually an extreme version of individualism, one aligned with the theories of Ayn Rand.
This simplified view ignores the social and historical context within which individuals live.
Most reasonable people, even those subscribing to this view, believe that it is possible to grant some level of moral responsibility to individuals, without denying the role played by social factors in their lives.
The second vision is also over simplified and simply wrong in many respects.
Hicks seems to go all-in on the Critical (Race) Theory boogeyman. The claim that “on many campuses you cannot be admitted, hired, tenured or promoted without pledging commitment to Critical Theory” is simply absurd. As is the claim that campus diversity efforts exist to indoctrinate Critical Theory.
Other errors include the claim that Critical Theory is used (somehow) in grades K-12, and that “microaggression” is a concept that was developed in Critical Theory.
This over-the-top depiction of college campuses (and K-12) being bastions of Critical Theory is laughable. It is also dangerous because it feeds into the right-wing notion that Critical (Race) Theory is the cause of polarization.
What Hicks describes are idealized, over-simplified, versions of these two viewpoints — versions that relatively few people would ascribe to.
He also frames this debate in binary, either-or terms. Hence, we either view people as individuals, or we view them as groups.
This is an unhelpful simplification of a complex issue and presenting it in these binary terms reflects — and contributes — to our current polarization. It also undermines attempts to reconcile and reach compromise regarding one of the major issues of our time.
Thomas Holtgraves is Ball State University professor in the Department of Psychological Science.
This article originally appeared on Lafayette Journal & Courier: Michael Hicks' column simplified the issues, polarizes society
