While the threats facing the United States are clear and present — from climate change endangering our coastline cities to the looming insolvency of Social Security — one recent trend, if continued, could jeopardize our ability to respond to crises: the rise of anti-intellectualism. When journalists are derided as liars, scientists doubted for their conclusions and beliefs viewed as superior to facts, we add a new threat could undermine our political institutions, further divide citizens based on inherent, physical characteristics and leave us as mere followers instead of the “shining city upon a hill” that we’ve demonstrated ourselves to be.
The treatment and respect of experts in this country should be outstanding. Though a healthy skepticism of our leaders is useful, the level of skepticism of political, economic and social leaders has far exceeded that. How might we solve the climate change crisis — of which 97 percent of scientists agree is true and caused by humans — when 46 percent of Americans believe 2015 was the hottest year in history because of “natural changes in the Earth’s temperature”? In that same poll, 27 percent responded that reports of a heating climate weren’t accurate. Good luck solving what the Defense Department has called a threat to our national security, not to mention to the continued existence of our fragile environment. It’s effectively impossible to discuss any plan for solving climate change when scientific leaders still have to debate its very existence. For some, I’m not even allowed to cite polls — which operate based on the laws of statistics — since many demagogues claim it’s the polls themselves that are skewed to favor one political ideology over another.
It’s a failure of leadership and education at the highest levels. When schools want to teach creationism as an alternative scientific explanation for evolution, some of our leaders just let it happen. If we teach a rigorously supported scientific conclusion on the equivalent level as a theological explanation in science class, we betray the principles of reason any modern country should strive for. Personal rejection of evolution is every American’s right — indeed, our founders fought to ensure that right among many others — yet it’s no wonder there is a burgeoning anti-intellectual strain when the line between facts and beliefs becomes increasingly blurred for our children.
It makes sense then how many Americans can follow demagogues, distrust intellectuals and enact laws designed to solve problems which facts reassure aren’t even there. For instance, there’s been a recent movement of state governments enacting voter identification laws in order to stop “rampant” voter fraud in our elections. In reality, a comprehensive investigation revealed that in the period from 2000 to 2014 there were only 31 fraudulent ballots out of a billion cast. Thus, when opponents point out that these laws severely target racial minorities and limit their ability to vote, supporters retreat behind the provably false voter fraud argument.
A number of fact-checking institutions that have arisen simply can’t keep up with the lies and distortions peddled in the political discourse. Many Americans don’t have the time or inclination to constantly separate what is true from what is mostly true and from what is severely misleading. When Hillary Clinton contends that FBI Director James Comey called her comments “truthful” — which he didn’t — or Donald Trump claims Mexican immigrants are rapists and “bringing crime” (immigrants have a lower crime rate than natives) — they add fuel to the anti-intellectual and anti-fact fire.
Confronting our problems head-on and making this country a more perfect union starts with a vigorous respect and trust in our experts and intellectuals. Rhetoric that distrusts these leaders in their field such as an unqualified individual claiming to know more about “ISIS than the generals do” threatens to derail the very problems that we seek to solve. Our journalists, doctors, lawyers and scientists have spent years practicing in their fields. It’s time we actually listen to them.
Ben Yahnian is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at b.yahnian@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | YesterdaySuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | 5 days agoThe University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
