Paul Kengor: The new activists — no criticism, no dissent

I’m experiencing from some leftist supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement something I’ve gone through with LGBTQ advocates, namely a refusal to permit disagreement, even when offering support for other elements (arguably the most important elements) of their agenda. Sure, that doesn’t include everyone in the movements, but it includes too many — especially in the cancel culture.

I recently experienced it again in a letter against me by about a dozen signers (mostly faculty) at a college in California (I’ll leave unnamed). They want the college to pull its sponsorship (i.e., funding) of a talk I’m scheduled to give on socialism and democratic socialism.

What that letter claimed in merely one stunningly simplistic sentence about my beliefs on BLM is flatly inaccurate, with no quotes or citations. The details are less important to my point here and the phenomenon I’m describing.

Let me illustrate: I just released a book called “The Devil and Karl Marx,” which drills down on the genuinely diabolical elements of Marx, Marxism and communism — with no references to BLM. In numerous interviews for the book, almost every interviewer asks about Marxism and BLM’s founders, particularly Patrisse Cullors, who said of herself and Alicia Garza: “We actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists.” In an April 2018 interview, Patrisse added: “I went through a year-long organizing program at the National School for Strategic Organizing. … We spent the year reading, anything from Marx, to Lenin, to Mao.” She expands on this in her memoirs, which include a foreword by America’s most famous female Marxist, Angela Davis, a mentor.

With BLM such a hot topic, interviewers naturally ask my thoughts. I get asked about the “About” section of BLM’s website, which underscores goals utterly unrelated to police reform, seeking (for instance) to rally “comrades” (they use that word more than once) and “cisgender” people to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.”

And yet, here’s my concern: It seems as if no one is free to object to any such language, even while commending BLM for its condemnation of abuses like George Floyd.

It begs the question: Must one accept every element of an organization’s agenda, its founders and its inspirations, with no room for criticism of items objectionable if not troubling? Why 100% or nothing? Total commitment to the entire line, word for word, or else you think Black lives don’t matter.

In my interviews, I attempt to answer questions thoughtfully — with respect to interviewers and BLM alike. I try to engage in civil discourse, responding with care, with the intention of shedding light, of educating, of hopefully calming the heated rhetoric.

I’ve written on the outrageousness of BLM’s #abolishthepolice. I’ve suggested other language, like #reformthepolice, with the intent of helping and making America a better place. Elsewhere, in long articles, I’ve applauded BLM’s crusade against police violence. And yet I’ve found that even answering questions from interviewers about, say, Cullors’ statements about Marxist influences, causes a nasty backlash.

Is there no room for intelligent discourse anymore? Must universities become echo chambers of leftists purging podiums of any dissenters from their ideological orthodoxy? They say they want diversity. No, not diversity of thought. Conservatives are banned from platforms. It’s intolerant.

No criticism, no dissent and no fun.