Scrolling through my various social media feeds this week I noticed a bit of a trend, aside from all the article’s shaming Christopher Columbus, I noticed an uptick in a certain type of op-ed article. This type of article usually spawns from people whose deeply held beliefs are challenged and often, in a university setting, due to my social circles. The articles are a defense against criticism, but not in any sort of academic way, they’re written from a standpoint where the person who is defending the belief does not offer up a defense against the specific criticism, but rather they defend their beliefs from being criticized at all. They seem to be of the opinion that their beliefs are exempt from criticism and that no one has the right (professors specifically) to call their beliefs into question.

According to the United States Constitution and the United Nations Declaration of Human rights, humans have rights. Whether they are given to humans by a governmental authority such as the right to own land, or they are given to humans simply because we are human, in the western world, humans have rights. Ideas, however, ideas do not have rights, ideas, theorems, and beliefs can all be challenged they are not exempt from criticism and they never should be. Having beliefs that are exempt from criticism slows progress, and halts enlightenment.

Especially in an academic setting such as a university where every idea is supposed to be put through rigorous scrutiny before it is considered acceptable or not. Articles in Scholarly journals (which you’re probably going to have to source more than once) go through peer reviews by people in the same field and are combed for errors. In a place of learning such as a university, the assumption should be that whatever deeply held beliefs that one has had since they were a child are going to be put to the test. That’s what education is, allowing one to begin to think for themselves, and if they arrive at the same conclusion then so be it, at least they got there honestly.

As a human, as a student, as an evolved ape, as an image of God, you are entitled to hold ideas that the consensus of scholars believe are contrary to fact, that’s your right., and you can have as many of them as you want. In fact, all your ideas can be contrary to fact and it’s no problem no western government should attempt to control that. You are well within your civil and ‘natural’ rights to believe in them. Sometimes it’s more comforting to believe them than to not to believe them. Certain, seemingly irrational beliefs can lead to a more comfortable life, regardless of what Socrates says, ignorance can sometimes be bliss.

To say that certain ideas or beliefs are removed from being criticized, are removed from being probed is to limit our access to the truth. In a university, defending ideas with ‘it’s what I believe’ simply won’t hold up, and they should not and will not be accepted as fact. If a university would allow such a position to enter into its academic structure than the entire knowledge base of said university would be suspect. Criticizing creates a stronger belief system, pruning removes the chaff from the wheat, it will happen to you when you are in university, be prepared for it and don’t run from it, because it won’t stop regardless of how much you’re against it. Hop on board, or move aside, either way, in an academic setting, you’re going to have your beliefs criticized.