CHAUTAUQUA–An organization–it doesn’t matter here which one, yet it wasn’t Chautauqua Institution or Advocates for Balance at Chautauqua–had invited an author to speak about a just-published book and sign copies.

So far, so good.

Then the organization disinvited the author. Why?

Part of the answer lies in reported correspondence from the organization to the author: “We believe that diversity of perspectives is crucial in creating a rich and informative dialogue at our (organization’s) events,” the organization said through a leader. “Recent developments have led us to re-evaluate the suitability of your views and opinions for our diverse audience.”

Let’s back up. To put it simply, “diversity” means “differences,” and “diverse” means “differing” in the sense of “having differences.” With that understanding, please re-read the previous paragraph and notice that the second quoted sentence doesn’t follow from the first.

Here’s why: When one starts with the premise that “diversity of perspectives”–meaning “differences of perspectives”—“is crucial,” one should not

¯ Disinvite someone because of the invitee’s “views and opinions,” or even

¯ “Re-evaluate the suitability” of them for a “diverse audience”–meaning an audience “having differences.”

In short, disinviting the author makes no sense.

Unless.

Unless the organization means not “diversity of perspectives” and “diverse” but something else.

Suppose that instead of “diversity of perspectives” and “diverse,” the organization means, for example, “liberalism” and “liberal,” respectively. In other words, suppose that the organization seeks not “diversity of perspectives” for its “diverse audience” but liberalism for what it believes–however correctly or incorrectly–is its liberal audience.

Now let’s make those substitutions in what the organization told the author, who appears not to be a liberal: “We believe that liberalism is crucial in creating a rich and informative dialogue at our (organization’s) events. Recent developments have led us to re-evaluate the suitability of your views and opinions for our liberal audience.”

With those substitutions–or pick an analogous set of substitutions if you like–possible thinking behind disinviting the author, though wrong, becomes clear.

Whatever the organization meant–whether “liberalism” and “liberal” or something else–its words in this instance aren’t consistent with presenting diversity of perspectives.

Instead, its words in this instance–repeat, in this instance–are consistent with an unspoken premise of presenting conformity of perspectives.

Conformity of perspectives.

ı ı ı

The larger point is that understanding premises that sometimes go unspoken can be “crucial”–to borrow a word–to understanding where others are coming from.

Speaking of such unspoken premises: One often-unspoken yet fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives lies in their views about human nature.

Liberals see human nature as basically good, while conservatives see it as a mixture of good and evil.

Once one understands this difference in premises, some other differences between liberals and conservatives can begin to make sense. This includes their differences in the extent to which they have inherent faith in government and inherent trust in government officials.

Dr. Khalil Habib, professor of political philosophy and American political thought at Hillsdale College, understands that the mixture-of-good-and-evil view is correct.

He recalls the Federalist Papers’ point that if human beings were angels, no government would be necessary. But human beings aren’t angels.

The framers of the United States Constitution, meeting in Philadelphia in 1787, understood this as well. Thus, they established government with separation of powers. Understanding human nature, they didn’t want power in few hands. They especially didn’t want too much power in too few hands.

Speaking at an Aug. 14 Advocates for Balance at Chautauqua, or ABC, event, Habib recalled that others, including French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, disagreed with the mixture-of-good-and-evil view and viewed human nature as good.

That led Rousseau’s philosophical descendents, including President Woodrow Wilson, to be skeptical of the separation of powers and advocate vesting more power in the executive branch.

Not being as skeptical as conservatives about human nature, liberals are less inclined to see power in few hands as a danger, or even as a substantial problem.

Rather, they see the separation of powers as preventing government from quickly adapting to changes in circumstances, Habib said.

This separation, after all, hinders government from quickly expanding its power.

Liberals tend to see this hindrance as a problem.

Conservatives, by contrast, tend to see government-power expansion not only as a problem but also as a danger.

ı ı ı

ABC was formed in 2018. Its mission is “to achieve a balance of speakers in a mutually civil and respectful environment consistent with the historic mission of Chautauqua” Institution. ABC is its own Section 501(c)(3) organization, legally separate from the institution.

Thus, ABC seeks diversity, not conformity, of perspectives.

Dr. Randy Elf’s Aug. 20, 2020, ABC presentation, on “How Political Speech Law Benefits Politicians and the Rich,” is at https://works.bepress.com/elf/21.

ç 2023 BY RANDY ELF