"[9] In May 2016, Jay L. Garfield and Bryan W. Van Norden published an opinion piece in The Stone column of The New York Times, entitled "If Philosophy Won't Diversify, Let's Call It What It Really Is.
Consequently, so long as "the profession as a whole remains resolutely Eurocentric," Garfield and Van Norden "ask those who sincerely believe that it does make sense to organize our discipline entirely around European and American figures and texts to pursue this agenda with honesty and openness.
In response to the controversy, an article was published the next day on the New York Times Editorial Page Editor's blog, summarizing the variety of opinions, pro and con, on this topic.
"[13] Garfield and Van Norden's article was almost immediately translated into Chinese,[14] and over twenty blogs in the English-speaking world have commented or hosted discussions, including Reddit.
[30] In June 2018, Bryan W. Van Norden published an opinion piece in The Stone column of The New York Times, entitled "The Ignorant Do Not Have a Right to An Audience.
"[31] In the article, Van Norden makes the case against John Stuart Mill's defense of absolute free speech found in his seminal text "On Liberty.
Van Norden disagrees, arguing that if that were the case, people wouldn't believe a radio host when they deny that the mass shooting of Sandy Hook ever happened.
In the age of mass media, which seeks to attract the largest audience possible, networks will gravitate towards more controversial figures like former child actor Kirk Cameron, who was allowed to defend on television that we should not believe in evolutionary theory unless biologists can produce a 'crocoduck' as evidence.
[34] Van Norden argues that, in contrast, responsible intellectuals like Noam Chomsky or Martha Nussbaum are not platformed to the extent that those who espouse pseudo-scientific talking points are.
In addition, he rejects outright censorship of such voices on the grounds that Van Norden believes that the exercise of violence is immoral, given that it amounts to acts of terrorism, and also impractical, given that the very nature of the Internet is such as to serve as a network of information that can't be blocked.
For example, when Jenny McCarthy's anti-vaccination beliefs get platformed, Van Norden argues, what occurs is not a demonstration of open-mindedness, but rather, a suggestion that such views are worthwhile to debate and discuss.
Van Norden disagrees, declaring that such views are, in fact, rooted in ignorance and while people like McCarthy have a right to free speech that should not be violated through the exercise of violence or censorship, that does not equate to a right to an audience afforded to her by institutions such as the media.
[39][non-primary source needed] The online publication Campus Reform published an article written by Toni Airaksinen recounting the incident, provocatively titled "Prof cherry-picks Jordan Peterson quotes for hit piece.
[41] Also defending Van Norden's opinion piece was Professor of Writing Katja Thieme in an article for Pyriscence titled "Jordan Peterson and Citational Practice.
Since, as Pigliucci points out, Van Norden rejects the notion of universal reason, such questions as the communal benefits of receiving certain opinions and the differing degree of merit among views, make such inquiries fall into a realm of arbitration.
Liam Warner, writing for the conservative publication National Review in an article titled "If You’re Going to Oppose Free Speech, Please Do It Properly,"[45] wrote that Van Norden's piece is a continuation of the Left's dissociation from the tradition of classical liberalism of which John Stuart Mill is a part.
A blogger under the pseudonym "Winston Smith" wrote a blog post criticizing Van Norden for rejecting absolute free speech; Smith uses an argument similar to the one made by Pigliucci, namely, that what the Left defines as racist, sexist, etc., is a matter of arbitration, and that by arguing that institutions controlled by the Left should decide which ideas are valuable or tolerable, Van Norden is encouraging political correctness.