The AAUP are making way for anti-Zionist boycotts.
Secondly, can the imbalance in political identification -- overwhelmingly Democrat -- allow for free inquiry to thrive?
Maybe it's not the political identification that's the problem but a cowardly and misguided administration (such as Thompson notes in the Reed College example that appears to have been premised on "free speech" for students).
Most debate is fruitless. Far too much heat and not nearly enough work. Why?
"Disagreement and critical inquiry are productive, healthy cornerstones of academia, which is why tenure exists for college and university faculty."
We don't know how to disagree, and our failure is rooted In our unwillingness to define adequately the problem at hand, whatever it is.
What is the problem? How do we know?
This failing is pervasive in school and at work, and it doesn't matter how educated we are, nor how experienced. It's a failure of leadership.
"Is studying plato racist?"
"Is capitalism bad?"
"Is this project a good use of our time and money?"
Our unproductive disagreements start with the inability (and unwillingness) to achieve a shared understanding of the problem in question.
We skip the critical questions:
What is the problem? How do we know it's a problem? Can we measure it? Can we agree on a definition? Can we agree on how important it is? Are we burning our fuel on a non-problem?
This is what it means to teach our students and colleagues how to think. It's a start anyway.
Interestingly enough, the most incapable of the skill of disinterested inquiry are many of my colleagues in academia.
One came after me in a private message for simply asking on his FB post wailing about Trump taking his students away whether his students are "undocumented." The students we teach are internationals students with F1 visas.
He called me a "hater" and unfriended me for asking this question.
On my own page, I asked why donate money to Mangioni's legal fees, instead of donating to someone's medical expenses.
That question made him very angry. He donated $100 (to this lost cause). He wrote to me: I don't want to know you.
The censorship of free speech that you speak is applied not just in academia but also down to the family and friendship level in the black community, where I have found myself just as scorned as your mentioned humanities teacher. Here, if you are not into victimology, it is best to keep your mouth shut.
However, I am running into more and more of us who understand that it is pathologies in black culture that create our tribulations, and the more we put out this truth, the sooner we will get to critical mass.
For instance, could students debate these points on US history:
1 - The British were not treating the colonists unfairly in 1776, in context, in that world.
2 - Columbus had no idea what he was doing. Just a sailor. Diseases killed most natives. They were killing each other consistently anyway, from Chile to Canada (because they are the same types of humans as those in Eurasia). Nature is red in tooth and claw. People are people.
3 - The Atlantic Slave Trade from 1450-1750 was perfectly in line with historical behavior worldwide at that time, terrible as it was. Indeed once the numbers got very high, Christians and secularists abolished it within a generation, to the chagrin of many leaders of color. Millions were enslaved prior, during worldwide, and today there are more slaves than ever.
4 - The terrible treatment of African Americans through the 1950s and 60s was no worse than the treatment of other minorities anywhere worldwide in those decades. Indeed that generation fought against real white supremacy to buy homes, get degrees and succeed. The ensuing two generations have done nothing but complain about microaggressions.
Worth debating in a free society? Immoral to even think it, let alone say it? Or simply, absolutely, obviously true.
Thanks for the comment. The myth of Far Left woke history is almost as bad as the late 19th century white supremacist myth. Both are ridiculous.
Only one is pervading our culture and schools though - all based on Ibram Kendis outright lies, Alex Haleys 70s film Roots, and one (really very good) Dee Brown book.
Good ideas. Long ago an Ivy League- trained professor told me my proposed theme for a paper seemed a bit trite. That stung, even as I came to agree with him. It was a wake-up call. Today a professor saying that to a student would risk accusations of all kinds and the students hurt feelings would trump any concerns about the intellectual development of the student. Things like “Lived experience” and “privilege”would be wielded against the professor in support of the student’s childish ideas. How could his or her “truth” be criticized by the privileged professor? This nonsense will be -or perhaps already is- the end of higher education.
"If a college education doesn’t teach students to disagree constructively with status quo opinions and perspectives then then it’s not fulfilling its mission."
For myriad reasons, the counseling profession has become the epicenter of the postmodern deconstructionist movement. As a result, we are turning out fledgling clinicians who have no idea how to challenge patients' belief systems in order to help them heal. They only know how to parrot talking points, the origins of which they do not understand because they are not allowed to question anything "from on high." When one isn't taught to challenge, well, anything, it makes for very poor clinical care in the real world.
Thank you for bringing more light to the issue because sometimes it seems like I'm a whisper on a scream.
I agree with everything stated and will add that it isn’t simply as easy as having more courage. Roland Fryer’s story about what he went through at Harvard paints a very clear picture of what to expect for opposing the current progressive sociopolitical orthodoxy- particularly in the Ivy League.
I think if you quietly observed humanities and social science courses and you scored them on how many times critical thinking techniques are taught versus how many times students are asked to affirm the prevailing academic orthodoxy on racial and gender identity then you'd have an absolute landslide in favor of the latter.
We can't honestly say that we're teaching critical thinking when the vast majority of in class speech validates a particular set of views, and only those views.
To someone who attended university long ago--got my Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology in 1982--the things you describe sound like a report from an insane asylum. My conclusion: Defund the universities. I never donate to my alma maters as they have become hotbeds of wokeism. Maybe people like the author who believe in freedom of speech and diversity of thought need to get together and found new universities that uphold these values.
I didn't realise such bullying was going on and being supported by Universities as far back as 2016. I'm sorry you had this experience. Does it go back further?
Is there a difference between academic free specch and free speech in the rest of society and the public square? Why do only academics get free speech? (if indeed they actually do)
No much time to expand, but my take is yes, it does go back furteher that 2016. And I posit that yes, academic environment is more aggressively repressive than the public square regarding freedom. Public square --seems to me-- has more breadth. The closeted nature of academia makes it super-stifling.
Actually, not even that: a few claim absolute ownership of freedom and they want everyone to agree with them (disclosure: I am a prof with tenure and dept chair). Sometime is subtle, others deafening…
Yes and no. For the most part I agree with Thompson. But consider the valorized AAUP that is now backsliding: see article:
AAUP faces criticism for reversal on academic boycotts https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2024/08/16/aaup-faces-criticism-reversal-academic-boycotts
The AAUP are making way for anti-Zionist boycotts.
Secondly, can the imbalance in political identification -- overwhelmingly Democrat -- allow for free inquiry to thrive?
Maybe it's not the political identification that's the problem but a cowardly and misguided administration (such as Thompson notes in the Reed College example that appears to have been premised on "free speech" for students).
Appreciate your thoughts here. I wasn’t aware that the AAUP had recently reversed their stance on this. Good to know.
On Disagreement and Inquiry.
Most debate is fruitless. Far too much heat and not nearly enough work. Why?
"Disagreement and critical inquiry are productive, healthy cornerstones of academia, which is why tenure exists for college and university faculty."
We don't know how to disagree, and our failure is rooted In our unwillingness to define adequately the problem at hand, whatever it is.
What is the problem? How do we know?
This failing is pervasive in school and at work, and it doesn't matter how educated we are, nor how experienced. It's a failure of leadership.
"Is studying plato racist?"
"Is capitalism bad?"
"Is this project a good use of our time and money?"
Our unproductive disagreements start with the inability (and unwillingness) to achieve a shared understanding of the problem in question.
We skip the critical questions:
What is the problem? How do we know it's a problem? Can we measure it? Can we agree on a definition? Can we agree on how important it is? Are we burning our fuel on a non-problem?
This is what it means to teach our students and colleagues how to think. It's a start anyway.
Yup. How to think, not what to think and so far, my freshmen students are engaging me productively on these controversial topics.
Positive news from the front lines!
Interestingly enough, the most incapable of the skill of disinterested inquiry are many of my colleagues in academia.
One came after me in a private message for simply asking on his FB post wailing about Trump taking his students away whether his students are "undocumented." The students we teach are internationals students with F1 visas.
He called me a "hater" and unfriended me for asking this question.
On my own page, I asked why donate money to Mangioni's legal fees, instead of donating to someone's medical expenses.
That question made him very angry. He donated $100 (to this lost cause). He wrote to me: I don't want to know you.
This is a grown man, by the way.
How immature of your colleague!
Maybe physically grown but obviously not intellectually.
The censorship of free speech that you speak is applied not just in academia but also down to the family and friendship level in the black community, where I have found myself just as scorned as your mentioned humanities teacher. Here, if you are not into victimology, it is best to keep your mouth shut.
However, I am running into more and more of us who understand that it is pathologies in black culture that create our tribulations, and the more we put out this truth, the sooner we will get to critical mass.
So true.
For instance, could students debate these points on US history:
1 - The British were not treating the colonists unfairly in 1776, in context, in that world.
2 - Columbus had no idea what he was doing. Just a sailor. Diseases killed most natives. They were killing each other consistently anyway, from Chile to Canada (because they are the same types of humans as those in Eurasia). Nature is red in tooth and claw. People are people.
3 - The Atlantic Slave Trade from 1450-1750 was perfectly in line with historical behavior worldwide at that time, terrible as it was. Indeed once the numbers got very high, Christians and secularists abolished it within a generation, to the chagrin of many leaders of color. Millions were enslaved prior, during worldwide, and today there are more slaves than ever.
4 - The terrible treatment of African Americans through the 1950s and 60s was no worse than the treatment of other minorities anywhere worldwide in those decades. Indeed that generation fought against real white supremacy to buy homes, get degrees and succeed. The ensuing two generations have done nothing but complain about microaggressions.
Worth debating in a free society? Immoral to even think it, let alone say it? Or simply, absolutely, obviously true.
These are great points and I like how you presented them. This is reality of human beings.
Thanks for the comment. The myth of Far Left woke history is almost as bad as the late 19th century white supremacist myth. Both are ridiculous.
Only one is pervading our culture and schools though - all based on Ibram Kendis outright lies, Alex Haleys 70s film Roots, and one (really very good) Dee Brown book.
Good ideas. Long ago an Ivy League- trained professor told me my proposed theme for a paper seemed a bit trite. That stung, even as I came to agree with him. It was a wake-up call. Today a professor saying that to a student would risk accusations of all kinds and the students hurt feelings would trump any concerns about the intellectual development of the student. Things like “Lived experience” and “privilege”would be wielded against the professor in support of the student’s childish ideas. How could his or her “truth” be criticized by the privileged professor? This nonsense will be -or perhaps already is- the end of higher education.
I sure hope it doesn’t signify the end! We need more balanced thinking and that requires more honest feedback from faculty to students.
Disagreeing with these ideologically biased people can be costly:
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/heresy
https://www.kritischegesellschaftsforschung.de/Journal/Article/65/50/pdf
Thanks for the Journal link. Good piece.
Thank you for sharing
"If a college education doesn’t teach students to disagree constructively with status quo opinions and perspectives then then it’s not fulfilling its mission."
A. Fucking. Men. Preach. It.
Thank you!
For myriad reasons, the counseling profession has become the epicenter of the postmodern deconstructionist movement. As a result, we are turning out fledgling clinicians who have no idea how to challenge patients' belief systems in order to help them heal. They only know how to parrot talking points, the origins of which they do not understand because they are not allowed to question anything "from on high." When one isn't taught to challenge, well, anything, it makes for very poor clinical care in the real world.
Thank you for bringing more light to the issue because sometimes it seems like I'm a whisper on a scream.
I agree with everything stated and will add that it isn’t simply as easy as having more courage. Roland Fryer’s story about what he went through at Harvard paints a very clear picture of what to expect for opposing the current progressive sociopolitical orthodoxy- particularly in the Ivy League.
Thanks for sharing. I’ll have to look into Roland’s story
Check his conversation with Glenn Loury
God bless!
Enjoyed this essay. Thanks for your courage.
I think if you quietly observed humanities and social science courses and you scored them on how many times critical thinking techniques are taught versus how many times students are asked to affirm the prevailing academic orthodoxy on racial and gender identity then you'd have an absolute landslide in favor of the latter.
We can't honestly say that we're teaching critical thinking when the vast majority of in class speech validates a particular set of views, and only those views.
Great contribution: concise and to the point. I am going to share it with my department colleagues, as we celebrate MLK!
To someone who attended university long ago--got my Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology in 1982--the things you describe sound like a report from an insane asylum. My conclusion: Defund the universities. I never donate to my alma maters as they have become hotbeds of wokeism. Maybe people like the author who believe in freedom of speech and diversity of thought need to get together and found new universities that uphold these values.
Yeah but that’s unlikely to happen. The next best thing is speak out, which I’m trying to do.
I didn't realise such bullying was going on and being supported by Universities as far back as 2016. I'm sorry you had this experience. Does it go back further?
Is there a difference between academic free specch and free speech in the rest of society and the public square? Why do only academics get free speech? (if indeed they actually do)
No much time to expand, but my take is yes, it does go back furteher that 2016. And I posit that yes, academic environment is more aggressively repressive than the public square regarding freedom. Public square --seems to me-- has more breadth. The closeted nature of academia makes it super-stifling.
Thank you Sonsoles. Academics want freedom for themselves, but not for anyone else?!
Actually, not even that: a few claim absolute ownership of freedom and they want everyone to agree with them (disclosure: I am a prof with tenure and dept chair). Sometime is subtle, others deafening…
Understood. It's a shame you can't post with your real identity. What would happen if you did?
What do you mean? This is my real identity.
Ah, sorry. Good!