{"id":4182,"date":"2023-08-24T15:59:40","date_gmt":"2023-08-24T20:59:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/18.217.136.120\/?p=4182"},"modified":"2024-02-01T00:08:15","modified_gmt":"2024-02-01T05:08:15","slug":"self-censorship-by-fear-or-by-seduction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.jimsleeper.com\/?p=4182","title":{"rendered":"Self-censorship by Fear, or by Seduction?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

There\u2019s a difference between being wisely, appropriately discreet, on the one hand, and keeping inappropriately, unjustly silent, on the other. Some self-censorship is prompted by fear of speaking up because it might cost you your job and, in a repressive state, your freedom. But some self-censorship is driven by the allure<\/em> of power and by a desire to get closer to power by proving that you can be trusted never to say that the emperor has no clothes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a talk to undergraduates at Yale in 2012, I criticized what I called a galloping culture of self-censorship that\u2019s been woven into the lives of ambitious undergraduates at elite colleges. Such a \u201cculture\u201d reigns in many corporations and state bureaucracies, but a good liberal education wouldn\u2019t train students to adapt to it. A liberal education would enable anyone to question and test conventional wisdom, not only as a student, but also, later in life, as an adult citizen of a republic and\/or of the world. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first 15 seconds of this recording are unclear, but the microphone was adjusted, and it’s very listenable after that. The talk was given outdoors, on Yale’s Beinecke Plaza.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

uu007 by unknown – untitled \/ uu rhythm (soundcloud.com)<\/strong><\/a> or Stream Y Syndicate music | Listen to songs, albums, playlists for free on SoundCloud<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A readable but somewhat-edited text of the talk is here on my website<\/a><\/strong>, but please listen to it instead at uu007 by unknown – untitled \/ uu rhythm (soundcloud.com)<\/strong><\/a>. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

By\u00a0Jim Sleeper<\/a>\u00a0\/ September 20, 2012<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

The text of the talk, in 2012:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

I’d like to say something today about the role that protest and remonstrance can play in restoring this depth of purpose to liberal education. And let me begin this little talk with a caveat: Not all protest or free expression advances freedom. First Amendment absolutists who push every envelope of conventional wisdom\u2014whether in street demonstrations, in nasty Super-PAC ads, or just to play political \u201cGotcha\u201d or make quick bucks\u2014tend to forget that the people and institutions they\u2019re pushing against aren\u2019t wholly wrong or bad and are often more vulnerable than even the critics want them to be.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n

For example, those of us who\u2019ve protested Yale\u2019s sad slide into its dubious adventure in Singapore and into its own business-corporatization here at home are actually trying to affirm, strengthen, and even rescue <\/em>something that\u2019s vulnerable in this university and that we must be careful not to trash. Little is gained and much lost by shooting off one\u2019s mouth and trying simply\u00a0to shock the complacent into action.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

But that\u2019s not actually the argument I want to emphasize today. I want to say that discretion and caution at Yale have been carried too far, not only among administrators and faculty but even among students, who should be learning the arts and disciplines of truth-telling as well as power-wielding. That\u2019s what you are doing in here in the Y Syndicate, but, in some other parts of this college, I notice a galloping culture of self-censorship that requires some comment.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

In Singapore and in some American business corporations, self-censorship is prompted by fear of established power. That kind of self-censorship assumes many subtle modulations and guises in daily life. Even here at Yale, as I saw last spring when I attended a panel discussion called \u201cSingapore Uncensored,\u201d this self-censorship of fear, evident among the Singaporeans on the panel, was reinforced by some in the audience who engaged in what I\u2019d call a self-censorship of seduction. It is prompted not by the fear<\/em> of state or of corporate power but by the allure <\/em>of power: Some students silence themselves almost enthusiastically, hoping to get closer to insider networking and to high status and power by proving they can be relied on never to mention that an emperor has no clothes.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

Any hope for a return on this kind of self-restraint is a\u00a0terrible delusion. It hastens the decay of trust and freedom inside and outside the halls of power. It has a long and quite embarrassing record at Yale, stretching back to Yalies who emerged from the college\u2019s secret societies in the 1940s and \u201850s to perpetrate blunder after ignorant blunder in American foreign policy, from installing the Shah of Iran and stage-managing the Bay of Pigs fiasco to promoting the Vietnam War and its successors.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a legitimate difference between being discreet and being silenced\u2014between exercising a sound judgment not to do something and accepting blindly that something is simply \u201cnot done.\u201d Agreeing to take certain things off the table can help a discussion and freedom of thought at times. But Yale today is doing little better than its old secret societies have done at teaching students when and how to draw such distinctions on behalf of a real republic, not a corporate state.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

I want to tell you about some Yalies who broke courageously and constructively with both the self-censorship of fear and the self-censorship of seduction. I witnessed exactly that, right here at this war memorial, when I was 19, almost 45 years ago, and it has never left my mind.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

One cold, windy, wintry morning in 1968 I was plodding across this plaza on my way to a class when I noticed about fifty undergraduates gathered silently around three students and the university chaplain, William Sloane Coffin, Jr. One of the three was speaking almost inaudibly because of the gusting wind and also because he was trying to find his voice against fear. \u201cThe government claims we\u2019re criminals,\u201d he was saying, as I leaned in to listen. \u201cBut we say that it is the government that is criminal in waging this war.\u201d He and the other two were about to hand Coffin their draft cards to refuse conscription into the Vietnam War upon their graduation three months later.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

Coffin, speaking in the idiom of an American civil religion that too few liberals these days understand, was there to bless this demonstration of a civic courage\u00a0that too few national-security conservatives understand. Near us in the Woolsey Hall rotunda were\u00a0all those names young Yale graduates, graven in icy marble, under the admonition, \u201cCourage Disdains Fame and Wins It.\u201d The seniors before us were challenging us to join them in disdaining fame, too, but without hope of\u00a0a\u00a0memorial\u2019s posthumous regard.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

\u201cBelieve me,\u201d said Coffin, himself a veteran of the CIA in Eastern Europe at the end of World War II, \u201cI know what it\u2019s like to wake up feeling like a sensitive grain of wheat lookin\u2019 at a millstone.\u201d It was a burst of Calvinist humor, a jaunty defiance of Established Power in the name of a higher one, and some of us grasped at that ray of hope, because\u00a0we were scared.<\/em>\u00a0For all we knew, these guys were about to be arrested on the spot. Certainly if they refused induction three months later, they\u2019d commit a felony punishable by five years in prison, and we felt arrested\u00a0morally\u00a0<\/em>by their example because we were all carrying draft cards just like theirs in our wallets.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

Yet something\u00a0in these seniors\u2019 bearing made them seem as patriotically American as Rosa Parks had been when she\u2019d refused, only twelve years before, to move to the back of a bus in Montgomery. In both cases, the protesters broke the law openly and non-violently to evoke and elevate something noble in the very concept of law and in the whole society. Parks didn\u2019t use freedom of speech to call the bus driver a racist mo-fo; and while the seniors did say that the government was criminal\u2014and they would be proven right about that\u2014by taking their stand with readiness to accept the penalty, they were also crediting the rest of us, whether we were bystanders or war supporters, with some integrity by speaking to us with clear dignity even as they exposed our shortcomings.\u00a0By breaking the law in the way I\u2019ve described, they\u00a0were upholding law.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

They were resisting the government in the name of a republic\u00a0that stands\u00a0for more than patriotic salutes to nationalist \u201cblood and soil,\u201d or than chants of \u201cYoo Es Ay!\u201d, or even than global free-markets whose riptides are dissolving the republican virtues and sovereignty those Yale seniors were trying to redeem. The German philosopher Jurgen Habermas marveled at such demonstrations\u00a0of\u00a0\u201cconstitutional patriotism,\u201d not flag-lapel patriotism.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

Nathan Hale affirmed\u00a0a nascent constitutional\u00a0patriotism against the established but corrupted government and military of his time. And the true Tea Partiers\u00a0dumped a multi-national corporation\u2019s property into Boston Harbor to protest its collusion with a corrupt government. As I watched the seniors speaking in 1968, the old civil society of the American republic seemed to be rising from a long slumber and walking and talking again, re-moralizing the state and the law. And as Coffin intoned Dylan Thomas\u2019 admonition, \u201cDo not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light,\u201d my silent, wild confusion gave way to something like awe.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

I tell you this not just because it happened right here, and not because anyone\u2019s going to criminalize what we say here. I tell it because the Yale administration, which claims that it\u2019s acting on behalf of liberal education as surely as architects of the Vietnam War claimed that they were acting for freedom and democracy, has signed a pact with, and sold its name to,\u00a0a tightly controlled corporate city-state that does criminalize and otherwise intimidate people who would speak as I\u2019m doing here.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

I\u2019m also trying to make a point about the nature of protest. Good protest requires giving clear reasons for what you are doing, even if others aren\u2019t listening. It requires making a binding commitment to uphold what you\u2019re affirming, not just sounding off against what you are opposing.\u00a0I and other critics of the Singapore venture aren\u2019t wishing it ill or trying to provoke an upheaval or scandal; we anticipate that the project will proceed all too smoothly. The subtle, ubiquitous and cunning self-censorship of fear that I witnessed at the \u201cSingapore Uncensored\u201d panel and described in the Huffington Post is meshing all too smoothly these days with the self-censorship of seduction I\u2019ve seen growing at Yale.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

The university is transforming the college from the crucible of civic-republican leadership that I saw in 1968 into a career-networking center and cultural galleria for a new global elite that doesn\u2019t answer to any republican polity or moral code.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not idealizing the past. Although Howard Dean was a freshman here in 1968 and John Kerry had graduated two years before, George W. Bush and his gang lived near me in Davenport\u2014he was president of my roommate\u2019s fraternity, DKE\u2014and not everyone considered the Vietnam War a duplicitous folly. What I\u2019m trying to show is that protest for protest\u2019s sake accomplishes little if the protesters aren\u2019t as serious about making clear what they\u2019re affirming as they are about making clear what they\u2019re exposing and opposing.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

What the civil-rights movement learned from Gandhi, and what every generation must re-learn to keep a republic or a liberal-arts college, is that these institutions are fragile because they have to rely on citizens\u2019 or students\u2019 taking to heart and acting on certain public virtues and beliefs that neither the institutions nor markets themselves do enough to nourish or protect and that, indeed, their wealth and power may actually weaken.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

Only a civic love that\u2019s disciplined and canny enough to renew an institution\u2019s or a republic\u2019s higher purposes by challenging its misjudgments can accomplish anything lasting. Otherwise, as we see elsewhere, twitter revolutions and armed upheavals can intensify chaos. Only an activism that balances group organizing with the irreducibly personal conscience and courage that enabled Rosa Parks and the Yale seniors to risk their standing and security to \u201carrest\u201d others morally can awaken more people to the subtle dangers to freedom. In other words, a protest strategy has to draw on wellsprings of civic faith, as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. and even secular activists like Vaclav Havel and Adam Michnik in Eastern Europe certainly did.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

When self-censorship is generated by fear of a state or a corporate employer, the fear leaves no fingerprints, as Slate political editor William Dobson put it in his new book The Dictator\u2019s Learning Curve. In university administrations and faculties, too, there are no smoking memos that order people not to say this or that. Yet Yale\u2019s tenurati and emeriti conduct too much of their communication only with arched eyebrows and significant silences, not with the candor and robust give and take that are the oxygen of self-government.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

What troubles me even more is the culture of enthusiastic self-censorship that\u2019s been rising among some students, driven not by fear of the state or the Yale Corporation but by the allure of becoming a powerful \u201cinside player\u201d after proving that one can be relied on to keep one\u2019s mouth shut. That self-censorship is destroying the republic far more than riotous street demonstrations are. It is rendering our political and financial systems illegitimate and unsustainable.<\/em> The failures of pathological, multi-problem elites in any sector you can name have become impossible to ignore.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

Yet that\u2019s precisely what too many of you are being trained to do, and it\u2019s why there are now so many books and articles in which Yale is despised. Like fear of power, seduction by power slowly asphyxiates candor and passion in public life and generates cynicism, prurience, and hazing instead.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve already mentioned the Singapore Uncensored panel, which no campus publication found the courage to report on honestly. You can read my report in the Huffington Post: http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.com\/jim-sleeper\/yale-has-gone-to-singapor_b_1476532.html<\/a><\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

A few years ago, the\u00a0Wall Street Journal<\/em>\u00a0reported that when Grand Strategy students visited West Point to discuss a book about Iraq with cadets, the Yalies \u201cdecided not to record the discussion because they did not want to have \u2018views expressed in the spirit of intellectual debate be used against them at a Senate confirmation hearing\u2019\u201d according to Grand Strategy\u2019s associate director, who treated this as something to brag about. Unlike the Yalies, the cadets, who\u2019d soon put their lives on the line to defend free speech, had no fear of recording the session.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

And earlier this year, when posts in\u00a0The Atlantic<\/em><\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Foreign Policy<\/em>\u00a0asked why General Stanley McChrystal is teaching an off-the-record course in \u201cleadership\u201d in the Jackson Institute, some of his students leaped into the public arena with a statement insisting robustly that he had never asked them to sign any pledge not to disclose what\u2019s discussed in the class. But they only wound up proving that their seminar\u2019s supposedly broad, open discussion of \u201cleadership\u201d could not, in fact, be shared with anyone outside it, not even with professors teaching other courses on similar matters who invited McChrystal himself to share his insights, only to be rebuffed.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

This sad misunderstanding of scholarly and democratic deliberation bears the same relation to robust freedom of speech as military music does to music. The students\u2019 claim that freedom is fostered this way unwittingly mimicked the new Yale-National University of Singapore college\u2019s policy of quarantining freedom to the classroom, as if it could flourish that way. Such\u00a0facile misunderstandings compromised McChrystal\u2019s own leadership on several occasions in Afghanistan before Yale hired him to teach about leadership behind closed doors.<\/a><\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

\u201cThe sinister fact about censorship\u2026 is that it is largely voluntary,\u201d\u00a0George Orwell wrote<\/a>\u00a0in 1944, as his manuscript of\u00a0Animal Farm<\/em>\u00a0was receiving rejection after rejection by frightened British publishers. \u201cUnpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban\u2026. Because of a general tacit agreement that \u2018it wouldn\u2019t do\u2019 to mention that particular fact. It is not exactly forbidden to say this or that or the other, but it is \u2018not done\u2019 to say it\u2026 Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness\u2026.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

A true liberal education would show\u00a0students how to put words on things in ways that not only expose public corruption but enlarge personal and public hope. Only by doing both can leaders lead in ways that others can trust. What I learned that wintry morning at Yale is that to kindle such trust and the courage it requires, you have to be willing to \u201cthink without banisters\u201d at times, as Hannah Arendt put it \u2013 she meant, without a predetermined ideology \u2014 and to deepen your own and others\u2019 love of a society or an institution by standing\u00a0intelligently and affirmatively<\/em>\u00a0against what\u2019s wrong in it by summoning the better angels of its nature.<\/p>\n

_________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.yaledailynews.com\/news\/2012\/sep\/21\/levine-a-more-intellectual-yale\/<\/a><\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

A student’s comment on my talk, in the Yale Daily News:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

By\u00a0Gabriel Levine<\/a><\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

Friday, September 21, 2012<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve been seduced: by a 6.8 percent acceptance rate, by the extracurricular bazaar and by the career fair. Most of all, we\u2019ve been seduced by Tony Blair and Stanley McChrystal. We\u2019ve been convinced, whether we ever think of ourselves in these terms or not, that we are, to use a phrase once employed to describe my high school, the \u201cjoyful elite;\u201d that we are engaged, that we are passionate and that we are on our way to careers of real worth and standing.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve been seduced \u2014 and we\u2019ve been silenced.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

Yesterday afternoon, Jim Sleeper, a lecturer in the Political Science Department, spoke to a seminar-sized group of students about what he terms \u201cthe corporatization of Yale.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Sleeper\u2019s account, the University, in pursuing legitimate ends such as global engagement and fundraising, has been caught in a tide overwhelming all academia. Yale has been carried away from the values that undergird its educational mission, towards a model of opaque authority that treats students as customers.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

While Sleeper\u2019s critique focuses on the Yale administration, he contends that corporatization has also crept into the student body. Students ingratiate themselves to authority figures and take care not to jeopardize their eventual senatorial prospects. But the confusion about the purpose of the University runs deeper: Too often, we at Yale forget that we came here because we are intellectual omnivores.<\/p>\n

We prioritize the extracurricular over the curricular. We are overwhelmed as freshmen by the number of organizations in Payne Whitney \u2014 most genuinely interesting, most of genuine value. Nothing wrong with that: Yale really is one of the few places on Earth where so many smart, motivated people are together in one place.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

Yet somewhere between being swept away by the energy of our peers and the feeling of obligation to do great things with our lives, we develop unctuous habits of mind and action. We seek to distinguish ourselves within a narrow conception of professional success, prizing high grades over challenging courses, default subjects of study over those that might truly interest us and e-board meetings over office hours. These habits draw us away from the very reason Yale attracts us in the first place: academic excellence.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

In short, we come to feel that what sets us apart from the rest of the world \u2014 those who didn\u2019t get in \u2014 isn\u2019t our intellectual prowess but what we surely will accomplish as alumni. Intrinsic motivation is crowded out by the extrinsic. Who, after all, remembers what Tony Blair studied in his Oxford days?<\/p>\n

Hopefully, some among us will do great things in and for the world. But for many, the price of that opportunity is too dear: How many of us would say that, above all else, we are seeking out the kind of first-rate education Yale can still offer?<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

The Yale administration abets this. It hires with pride world leaders who bring titles with enough sheen to surpass the blemishes of their blunders on the world stage, including such gems as the Iraq War. It gestures towards educational principle by instituting distributional requirements and then abandons all pretense of rigor by offering An Issues Approach to Biology and Planets and Stars.<\/p>\n

Even Provost Peter Salovey\u2019s signature class, Great Big Ideas, is based on the premise that intellectual exploration is something students can\u2019t be bothered to do outside a class.<\/p>\n

Perhaps worst of all, the Admissions Office fails to emphasize \u2014 the way, say, the University of Chicago or Swarthmore does \u2014 that one comes to Yale to learn.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s easy to treat education solely as a path to gainful employment, especially when that\u2019s so hard to find. But Yale can provide haven from those practical pressures. These are the only four years in our lives when we can devote ourselves to thinking.<\/p>\n

As the University selects its 23rd president, we students must do everything in our power to ensure that the first priority of those who lead our institution is to rejuvenate its intellectual climate. Of course, President Levin, over the last two decades, has been invaluable in ensuring that the facilities and faculty are of the highest caliber. But those efforts will have been wasted on Yale College if we take no joy in the life of the mind. Now, from the bottom of this University, we must reclaim our highest intellectual ideals and demand that those at the top do the same.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n

Gabriel Levine is a junior in Trumbull College. <\/em><\/p>\n

\n\n\n<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There\u2019s a difference between being wisely, appropriately discreet, on the one hand, and keeping inappropriately, unjustly silent, on the other. Some self-censorship is prompted by fear of speaking up because it might cost you your job and, in a repressive state, your freedom. But some self-censorship is driven by the allure of power and by […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4182","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jimsleeper.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4182","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jimsleeper.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jimsleeper.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jimsleeper.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jimsleeper.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4182"}],"version-history":[{"count":21,"href":"https:\/\/www.jimsleeper.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4182\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4278,"href":"https:\/\/www.jimsleeper.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4182\/revisions\/4278"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jimsleeper.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4182"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jimsleeper.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4182"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jimsleeper.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}