Koch-coordinated political foundations have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the last thirty years making it seem as if free speech in academia is the defining political issue of our time,
Idea: (Koch) Rich and powerful with political bias pretending that free speech is supported in universities.
Similar to fascists using "free speech" as a smokescreen for their politics, billionaires use "political correctness" as a smokescreen for their interests.
Argument Structure: Juxtaposing fascists using "free speech" and billionaires using "political correctness"
As I wrote at the beginning of this review, I think most of the debate on free speech--"political correctness," "cancel culture," "trigger warnings," etc.--is just a distraction.
Argument: debate on free speech about cancel culture etc. is a distraction. Wraps up argument to conclude.
Moskowitz is right that in an unequal society, free speech is an impossible ideal. Which is just another reason to fight for a society more equal in wealth and power.
Paraphrase/Summ of conclusion: Dunbar finds debate on free speech -- "cancel culture" "PC" "trigger" etc. --to be distracting. It controls how & what people think about in politics, Sort of "anti-politics" to distract people. We let the rich do whatever while we are distracted with irrelevant stuff. Dunbar agrees that Moskwitz is right about our unequal society but says it's better reason to fight for a more equal society.
College Fix and Campus Reform
Further reading on College Fix and Campus Reform sites for more info.
opeds
Definition: op-ed, short for "opposite the editorial page", is a written prose piece typically published by a newspaper or magazine which expresses the opinion of an author usually not affiliated with the publication's editorial board.
Stanley Fish
Further Reading about Stanley Fish for context.
Which raises the question: How should we decide which value wins over the others?
Key idea question: How should we decide which value wins over the others?
when Koch Foods settled a class-action lawsuit brought against the company by some of their food-processing workers in Mississippi;
Further Reading for more understanding
media euphemism; a way of seeming objective and even-handed. In other words, a way of obscuring.
Question: Why would the media want to use a euphemism to obscure the controversy?
the politics of controversy is a means of distraction.
Question: How is controversy used as a distraction?
But the word is mostly a media euphemism; a way of seeming objective and even-handed. In other words, a way of obscuring.
Important idea: Moskowitz says that the word "provocative" is itself "a media euphemism; a way of seeming objective and even-handed. In other words, a way of obscuring." and a "distraction"
commentariat
Define: members of the news media considered as a class.
On page one Moskowitz clarifies that his book isn't anti-free speech but only "anti-the-concept-of-free-speech" (meaning he doesn't think free speech exists or ever has) and that he doesn't favor censorship laws that prohibit fascist and racist speech.
Important: Moskowitz explains that his book is "anti-concept-of-free-speech" meaning he doesn't believe free speech exists and that he doesn't favor censorship laws that prohibit facist and racist speech.
We suggest that American Indian mascots are harmful because they remind American Indians of the limited ways others see them and, in this way, constrain how they can see themselves.
This sounds like the argument/thesis of the author.
Chief Wahoo, Chief Illinwek, Pocahontas, or other common American Indian images
Maybe look further into unknown names of common American Images.
In these cases, positive stereotypes also have negative effects.
Either way stereotypes are negative whether they are positive or negative.
Stereotypes are cognitive tools that people use to form impressions of others (Gilbert & Hixon, [24]; Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen, [38]). They are persistent features of human discourse, and the media is a powerful source and communicator of this discourse (Blair & Banaji, [ 1]; Davies, Spencer, Quinn, & Gerhardstein, [10]; Devine, [14]; Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, Thorn, & Castelli, [37]). Stereotypes are particularly powerful when the target group (i.e., the group represented by the stereotype) is unfamiliar. As Lippman ([36]) wrote in his original definition, stereotypes are "pictures in the head of the world beyond our reach."
Section summary: defines Stereotype =Tools people used to form impressions on others. =Lead to a lot of controversy the media is a big source that supports stereotypes.=Usually targets those that the targets group that are unfamiliar/ignorant.
empirical
Definition: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.