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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.