The President of Stanford Desires Us To Debate Which Quantity is Bigger, 9 or 133

But I consider we have to make each effort to get individuals who disagree, even sharply, in dialogue with each other.

In a earlier article, I wrote an open letter to the Stanford President, Jonathan Levin, concerning a convention at his college, Pandemic Coverage: Planning the Future, Assessing the Previous. As SBM readers know, this convention featured medical doctors who principally didn’t deal with COVID sufferers, however as an alternative unfold misinformation about it and tried to purposefully infect folks with it. My letter predicted that the convention can be an enormous train in deliberate amnesia. As such, I inspired President Levin to reject censorship and easily play movies of the audio system from the primary two years of the pandemic.

Sadly, President Levin embraced censorship. As an alternative of actually informing the convention attendees in regards to the audio system, he whitewashed their pandemic report with the following speech:

Good morning and welcome to everybody. I recognize the chance to be right here.

Now, you would possibly surprise: Why is Jon Levin opening this convention on pandemic coverage? You would possibly say, Jon isn’t any public well being professional. And I’d say: Effectively, I did run a enterprise faculty in the course of the COVID pandemic, so I’ve some expertise making pandemic coverage selections. Additionally they say you be taught most by making errors. So I believe there are in all probability a thousand Stanford MBAs who’re prepared to argue that I’m mainly a world professional.

Nonetheless, that’s not why I’m right here.

Once I was invited to take part on this occasion a number of months in the past, it was with the understanding that the purpose was to carry collectively folks with totally different views, have interaction in a day of dialogue, and in that method, attempt to restore among the rifts that opened throughout COVID.

That struck me as a precious purpose, and the kind of purpose we should always intention for at Stanford. So I agreed to offer a number of temporary remarks to that impact.

What adopted was disappointing. Once I was invited, I requested round and certainly the organizers have been speaking to some well-known folks with fairly totally different views who have been prone to communicate. Nonetheless, it was not so easy. Some invitees weren’t in a position to make it, or withdrew, or didn’t wish to take part in an occasion with different audio system whose views and conduct they discovered attacking or abhorrent.

When an preliminary and partial agenda was posted, it was instantly perceived as one-sided, and as I’m certain you all seen grew to become the topic of op-eds and social media posts.

Satirically, as an alternative of repairing rifts as supposed and maybe spurring recent pondering, the method appeared to reopen outdated and current divisions.

As an observer and because the chief of this college, I discovered the episode dispiriting, in a method that goes past the specifics of this explicit occasion.

We’ve many points at present at Stanford, and on different campuses, the place views are divided, and in some circumstances, like this one, the place emotions are uncooked.

But I consider we have to make each effort to get individuals who disagree, even sharply, in dialogue with each other. I consider it’s important for us to try this as members of the college and college leaders – not simply because it’s a strategy to advance data, however as a result of we have to mannequin that conduct if we wish to anticipate it from our college students. And in at present’s world, we completely have to ask and anticipate our college students to have the ability to have interaction with, take heed to, and debate with folks with whom they disagree. My view is that we have to err on the facet of speaking to 1 one other.

So I hope at present’s convention will come off in a method that includes simply that – considerate and sturdy dialogue throughout totally different views. I hope it yields some necessary insights about future pandemic coverage – we definitely want that. Maybe it does even bridge a number of divides amongst these within the room.

And I hope much more that every one of you’ll be a part of within the bigger venture of making an attempt to make Stanford and different campuses boards for the kind of sturdy and considerate dialogue that’s on the coronary heart of universities after we’re at our greatest.

Had I spoke, I wouldn’t have been afraid to say that many of those medical doctors predicted COVID would kill lower than 50,000 People and that the mass an infection of unvaccinated youth would result in herd immunity in 3-6 months. I additionally would have identified that the juvenile conduct of the lots of the convention audio system created rifts. As an alternative, President Levin absurdly claimed they have been serious about repairing them.

We’ve had extra flu deaths amongst kids this 12 months than COVID deaths

With President Levin’s admonition to “take heed to” folks in thoughts, let’s revisit simply one of many movies I offered to him. On this video, from November 2020 Dr. Jay Bhattacharya stated “we’ve had extra flu deaths amongst kids this 12 months than COVID deaths”.

As with most of Dr. Bhattacharya ‘s pandemic pronouncements, this was completely false. The primary reported COVID loss of life within the US was on 2/28/2020. By the point Dr. Bhattacharya recorded that video, COVID had killed not less than 133 kids in response to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Throughout that very same time-frame, the flu killed 9 kids. The subsequent 12 months, simply 1 baby died of the flu whereas COVID killed a number of hundred kids. At the moment, the CDC stories 1,935 COVID deaths and 338 flu deaths amongst kids because the begin of the pandemic, although clearly kids must be vaccinated towards each viruses.

Though the convention audio system botched primary info like this on a regular basis, in response to President Levin, “we have to make each effort to get individuals who disagree, even sharply, in dialogue with each other.” Sounding extra like a university freshman than a college president, President Levin implied that nobody is ever mistaken, every little thing is only a matter of opinion, and what actually issues is that nobody get their emotions harm. In President’s Levin’s telling, it’s wasn’t mistaken for Dr. Bhattacharya to say that 9 is bigger than 133, nonetheless it’s inappropriate for anybody to say this isn’t a “totally different view” and it shouldn’t be a subject of “dialogue”.

I supposed I’ll be accused of silencing debate and dialogue, however 133 is bigger than 9. This wouldn’t have been controversial in 2019. When somebody spreads harmful, apparent misinformation, sincere brokers name it out, even when that particular person has fancy credentials, can communicate in scientific jargon, and can declare to be “censored” when their errors are corrected. President Levin, nonetheless, expects us all to be open to the likelihood that 9 is bigger 133, and it doesn’t bode properly for the longer term that “leaders” of main American establishments take a look at bare emperors and praise them on their stunning garments.