His views rendered him a pariah. Being anti-abortion and sceptical of LGBTQI+ rights marked him, apparently, as unfit even though, as far as Civis could tell, there was no evidence these views affected his conduct toward staff.
How the wheel has spun. How the boot has switched feet, spurred further by the assassination of Maga influencer Charlie Kirk. A progressive viewpoint has become employment poison wherever President Donald Trump and allies exert control.
Yet Civis also believes progressive intolerance and self-righteousness have eroded support from the political centre — alienating rather than listening, engaging, encouraging.
It always struck Civis as both disappointing and ironic when the Left — which had gained so much from free speech — tried to shut it down. The Right took up the free-speech mantle as the Left campaigned on eliminating "hate" speech.
This speaks volumes, in the US and here, about which side has the most power and controls the dominant public narrative.
The abrupt switch in the US has been striking. Vice-president JD Vance’s about-face on free speech reveals staggering hypocrisy. Kirk’s martyrdom is helping to fuel an authoritarianism even the most zealous progressives could never achieve.
Both sides are quick to adopt principles that conveniently suit the moment. Free speech and genuine diversity of thought be damned.
It is not hard to see echoes of this in New Zealand. Expressing the "wrong" views can lead to "cancellation". In universities and beyond, people are aware of the risks associated with challenging prevailing orthodoxy. Better to keep your mouth shut.
No matter your professional competence, try getting promoted if you do not buy into, say, the Te Tiriti policies or prevailing orthodoxy on gender.
Of course, both free speech and tolerance must have limits. It is just that these boundaries should be uncomfortably, even agonisingly, broad.
Although progressive movements have achieved significant progress in advancing rights, tolerance, and diversity, true diversity must also encompass a diversity of thought. Don Brash or JK Rowling, anyone?
Now, US Attorney-general Pam Bondi proposes targeting "hate speech" in response to Kirk’s killing. The flip-flop is confounding.
Nevertheless, there have been some right-wing warnings. Conservative writer Scott Greer has said that "laws targeting hate speech or "violent" speech would be weaponised against conservatives by a future Democratic president.
This, naturally, assumes US democracy survives sufficiently to be able to elect a Democrat leader after the surging authoritarianism of Trump/Vance years.
To return to Civis’ cliche theme from a recent column: What goes around, comes around. Be careful what you wish for.
As it stands, the Trump administration and its supporters are working to restrict free speech in ways more extreme than anything attempted by the Democrats.
A New York Times editorial concluded: "The ability to disagree with other people on raw, difficult issues, without fear of repression, is the essence of American [sic] freedom."
Civis, ever quixotic in resisting the US hijacking of "America" and "American," could not resist inserting that futile "sic".
★★★
Small children in the 2020s continue to say the "darndest things".
One 4-year-old was running around with a blow-up unicorn in an energetic game with his cousins.
Looking a tad exhausted, he retreated to his chair, where he pretended to plug in the toy.
It’s being charged, he said, as he took a well-earned break.
