10 ms·

The threat from within

176 points by sloanesturz 10y ago

calibraxis 10y ago
The true enemy of a government is its population. The true enemy of university administrators is the students and faculty. The threat from within.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
thinkmassive 10y ago
"The first step is to remind our students and colleagues that those who hold views contrary to one’s own are rarely evil or stupid, and may know or understand things that we do not." In a single word: empathize This is a growing problem in far places more than just universities. It's amplified by the filter bubbles in which most of us participate, whether we realize it or not, thanks to social media and targeted advertising.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  That's not empathy at all. It's reason.
  - yarou 10y ago
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Skepticism doesn't entail blocking out viewpoints you disagree with. You automatically lose an argument if you refuse to engage with your detractor.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      > You automatically lose an argument if you refuse to engage with your detractor. Nah. If someone who believes the Earth is flat is willing to spend 12 hours a day arguing on forums, your best move is to refuse to engage. You will never convince them, and they will always outlast you and feel victorious.
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        Oh god ^this. There is a particularly broken specimen of human on a skeptical website who's username reflects his obsession, "Sfseaserpent". He believes that there is a sea serpent, essentially a biblical dragon, living in the San Francisco bay. There is no amount of debating or reasoning which can move him one iota, and the most you can achieve is to cause him to stop acknowledging your existence for a time. I have had experience elsewhere with someone who trolls various forums in an effort to spread the "good word" about Jehova. Sometimes, "The only winning move is not to play." It's not always the case, and sure, that line can be used as an excuse by people in bad faith to avoid an argument; it's still the prudent course sometimes.
        thinkmassive 10y ago
        This sounds like the textbook definition of trolling. If you honestly believe the sea serpent guy I think you're probably the one being taken for a ride. You're right with the Wargames quote in any case though.
        M_Grey 10y ago
        I've never engaged with him personally, but having seen him over literally many years, I doubt that he's anything other than a sincere maniac. He's not good at getting a rise out of people... he always ends up being the one to lose his temper and flame OUT. Same with the Jehovah's Witness. Trolls are there, all over the place, but there are "True Believers" too, and they're even more immovable and pointless.
      - cookiecaper 10y ago
        I think it was meant more in the general sense, not the absolute. Naturally you have to ascertain the good faith and sanity of your potential counterpart, but in general, there's a difference between attempting to have a discussion and being unable to find common ground in a reasonable time frame and flat out refusing to engage with someone whose beliefs you've illegitimately labeled taboo. The issue is not that people make a serious and earnest effort to understand the opposing side, but tire before they're able to understand the other POV. The issue is rather that they apply one or more of a handful of ethereal, unfalsifiable labels to their opponent, and then believe that gives them license to dismiss the opponent's POV out of hand without addressing or processing it. When such people hear something challenging to their favored notions, instead of saying "Wow, I'll need to think about that", they say "You're a [bigot|racist|%phobe|redneck|yuppie|commie|socialist|...].", mutter additional insults under their breath, tell you not to try to show your disgusting ignorant face around here anymore or else, and pat themselves on the back for their righteousness while they walk away.
    - chetanahuja 10y ago
      "You automatically lose an argument if you refuse to engage with your detractor." You just described the battle cry of the eternal troll. Your freedom of speech does not equal me being forced to listen to you.
  - rukuu001 10y ago
    Empathy is a tool for the effective communication of reason.
    - whoopdedo 10y ago
      More to the point, communication is necessary for empathy, and thus reason. If you don't tell me what you think and engage me in dialog, there's no way for me to come to an understanding of your manner of thinking and thus synthesize a compromise between our opposing viewpoints. Instead, what I encounter more often is if I don't immediately agree with someone they say, "we have to agree to disagree." Which is no agreement at all. It's shutting down communication and preventing me from understanding why we disagree. I learn nothing from people who say that to me and find it frustrating.
  - yongjik 10y ago
    The word "reason" (or its friend, "logic") is misused so many times that it has become basically a marketing term. The most outrageous instigators branded themselves with "reason", from Nazi to Marxists to 9/11 hoaxers to alt-right. Have you ever heard someone arguing "Reason is on their side"?
- babesh 10y ago
  That is not a universal truth. It can often be true. In the real world there is also hate speech, lying, cheating, and bullying and it is far from rare. You need to figure out which one it is.
  - babesh 10y ago
    Reminds me that supposedly debate in Greece originated in trying to convince others of your side rather than as a means of understanding the other side. If you go to high school debate you see this played out. Neither side arrives at the truth and many viewpoints favoring neither side get left out.
    - alexryan 10y ago
      Agreed. The tendency to cling to views and debate rather than pursue truth is extremely unfortunate. Sam Harris gave a talk on this subject that I found quite interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOL3kUHjp2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOL3kUHjp2Y
  - vkou 10y ago
    Not to mention sealioning.
  - dandersh 10y ago
    And in order to be able to do so you have to exposed to all of the above...as well as legitimate viewpoints that can be conflated with all of the above.
- dandersh 10y ago
  Before you can empathize you have to be sincerely curious, "What is it that they're seeing that I don't?". Unfortunately the lack of intellectual curiosity, the disinterest in thinking critically, is something that has infected universities from the outside and universities have been powerless to stop it. Personally my favorite memory of college was talking politics with a professor who was opposite of me on the traditional political spectrum on almost everything. We enjoyed talking to each other, we argued quite a bit, but I learned a lot. The most important thing I learned was that despite all of our differences we agreed on more than I would have possibly imagined.
  - thinkmassive 10y ago
    I enjoy a friendly political debate, but only in very small groups. Beyond 2-4 people and it's difficult for everyone present to participate enough to feel they're genuinely being heard. A one-on-one conversation with a college professor sounds excellent. On the other hand, I'm having difficulty thinking of any particular area where it would be beneficial to have an entire institution limiting itself to a single belief.
narrator 10y ago
He's right that ad hominem is intellectually lazy. People should be ashamed of themselves, especially if they consider themselves to be academics, if that's the only argument they want to use in a debate.
vxxxxxxxxxxxxx 10y ago
While I don't disagree with the substance of this essay -- I think this point needs to be made, and this discussion needs to be had -- it's very difficult to offer "open forums for contentious debate" when certain speakers have built showmanship out of their propensity to offend. This fits most definitions of deliberate trolling, and isn't a productive recipe for reasoned debate, protests and boycotts by the populace drive home the point that the speaker's views are already well-known, and not welcome at all. Similarly, some brave institutions may decide to host speakers that are near-universally condemned for views that society has decided to be abhorrent. By giving such speakers a forum, they're endorsing that such views are worthy of being heard or debated, whether they are enthused by those ramifications or not. Such behavior requires calculated risk, risk that may pay off if attitudes change in the future.
- rspeer 10y ago
  Yeah, he has a point in the abstract, but this would have been better timed before Steve Bannon took over the executive branch and basically broke the Overton window. It's intellectually lazy to dismiss views via ad-hominem attacks, but it's also intellectually lazy to consider all views morally equivalent. White supremacy has entered the political discourse and it does not deserve equal time.
  - josephorjoe 10y ago
    It is worse than lazy to consider all views morally equivalent. It is aiding and abetting evil. It actively undermines reasoned discourse. This is the point Jon Stewart was trying to make way back in 2004 when he took down Crossfire. The situation clearly has not improved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_(TV_series)#Jon_Stewart.27s_appearance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_(TV_series)#Jon_Stew...
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
      Except for your last point about Jon Stewart, your point could easily have been made by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada Once you have a moral compass that is not even open to debate, it is a short step to suppressing all debate and even persecution of the "filthy scum" that dare question your morals.
robertpateii 10y ago
It's good they're talking about this. But I'm surprised there's no mention of the "more speech" quote, how old this issue is, and how clearly the solution has been declared by the supreme court over the years (discussion not silence). "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." -- Justice Brandeis, 1927. I'd never read the whole opinion until just now. It's great and the paragraph that quote comes from is stirring. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/357#pg_377 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/357#pg_377 edit\addendum: ACLU has a FAQ on this issue that directly addresses the universities: https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus
- ci5er 10y ago
  This is maybe orthogonal to the point, but i receive more than a little bed-time satisfaction by reading supreme court decisions. Those judges ain't dummies!
  - robertpateii 10y ago
    Definitely! You'll probably appreciate this podcast if you haven't already heard it: http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolabmoreperfect http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolabmoreperfect
- hvs 10y ago
  Many people seem to have forgotten about the Nazis vs. Village of Skokie case from the 70's. The Nazis were defended by the ACLU. This idea that "hate speech" isn't protected by the 1st amendment is a weird development that has no basis in law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...
aswanson 10y ago
No mention of the ridiculous amount of wealth a university education costs, the lack of economic education in the formal track and how the academic class (of which the author is a member) is rendered mostly immune from forces most of their students will have to face (investment for retirement, time value of money, etc). But yeah, free speech to yell at homosexuals and feminists and minorities and all that. Most important thing in my fucking life.
- HoppedUpMenace 10y ago
  The point is being made that free speech is being suppressed by the very people who should wholeheartedly support and debate it, being that college is the appropriate place to do such things. The author is also pointing out that it has far greater negative implications on the world at present than any other current issue facing college campuses.
  - aswanson 10y ago
    "it has far greater negative implications on the world at present than any other current issue facing college campuses." I call bullshit. The price of college, the elevation of it's utility in our society, and the economic illiteracy of most of it's professors and attendant lack of preparation of it's students all present far more danger to society in the long term than blocking a speech from Milo or some other overblown vacuous controversy surrounding "free speech".
- calibraxis 10y ago
  Yes, the costs result in obvious discrimination against the poor and working class.
uptownfunk 10y ago
I think this is phenomenon is itself a byproduct of the education system, more specifically that liberal values and ideals are seen as more intellectually correct. In fact I think liberals are as guilty of this occurring as the conservatives. Part of the solution should be in consciously emphasizing the need for empathetic listening and respect (though not necessarily agreement) for the opinions of others even if they conflict with our own "intellectually superior" liberal values. Once that becomes embedded in the educational culture we can begin to see a turnaround.
- chetanahuja 10y ago
  "liberal values and ideals are seen as more intellectually correct" The irony here is of course is that those complaining about not being heard on campuses today are actually the most privileged members of western society who support restrictions on media and suppression of freedoms for marginalized groups. Tolerance as a value can't survive if the tolerant are required to provide a platform to the intolerant.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
didibus 10y ago
"But we all need worthy opponents to challenge us in our search for truth." That's the problem, where's the worthy opponent? I'm sure they exist, but I rarely see or hear of them. I see a lot of demagogues, and those are not worthy by definition and should not be brought into the conversation especially in a University. Bring us worthy opponents and I'm sure there won't be protests from students.
- striking 10y ago
  How would you establish a definition for "worthy"? I'm almost certain your definition would differ from someone else's. It's for that reason that I don't think we should prevent anyone from speaking. The only solution is more speech. Also: Universities are doing a pretty poor job of bringing in certain kinds of speakers. If you want change, make it.
  - BatFastard 10y ago
    I would posit that Trump is not a worthy opponent. He does not use facts and reason for his arguments. He uses bullying and lies, that makes him "unworthy" in my eyes.
    - jokipoki 10y ago
      .
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        If you get flagged for deliberate trolling, that's not proving the point of the article. Trump refuses facts. It doesn't matter whether you think he got to the right or wrong viewpoint, he is objectively not a worthy debater. He does not explain why you should think something, back it up with true statements, and meaningfully respond to counterpoints and criticism. I don't care what you voted, but you have not named a 'worthy opponent' for didibus.
        10y ago
moultano 10y ago
I mostly buy this and see the problem. I wonder though if the "marketplace of ideas" will become a naive notion. If the memetic success of an idea becomes totally uncoupled from its truth or virtue, then evolution will not select memes that benefit us. We are exposed to way more high fitness memes than ever before, and I'm not sure we are capable of effectively resisting them. We are becoming unwitting hosts. In a world of weaponized memes, the battlegrounds may be entirely in controlling their exposure and thus their R0.
- lucio 10y ago
  The success of ideas having real-world impact, are never uncoupled from reality. Memes, as Genes, impact the real world, so Reality and Reason can determine fitness.
  - moultano 10y ago
    Maybe, but I worry that we are now exposed to more memes than lived experiences, so their power to overcome reality is increased. People have extremely strong opinions about things they have no first hand exposure to. I worry that the increase in polarization is simply people having opinions about more things. If that's the cause, I don't see a way back.
_rpd 10y ago
While this letter appears to be sincere, it is willfully ignorant of the decades long shift of some academic departments from a stance of "ivory tower" objectivity to the deliberate choice to use their prestige and power as political activists. It isn't like they are hypocritically pretending to be objective, they actively sneer at people who make the attempt.
marricks 10y ago
I think it's rather odd to take a stand for "everyone's right to speak" when many speakers openly hate liberal institutions and really don't seem to have any regard for facts or knowledge. Platforms to speech is what gives these people power, and if teachers and students say they don't want to condone those views, tied with racism and sexism, I think that should be respected. What happens when we give these people (alt right, bigots, etc) platforms is they get followers. Look at the British National Party, they were piratically nothing until the BBC decided to massively increase their coverage. Was the BBC's coverage fair and impartial? Probably, but just giving them the attention causes people to look into their platform and realize blaming everyone else is a pretty comforting thing to do rather than take responsibility. The deep question is who should be the gatekeepers, and I guess John Etchemendy is saying it shouldn't be universities. Perhaps he's right in a way, the board shouldn't be making those decisions. I do think the faculty and students do have a right and duty to though as giving platforms for hate speech empowers it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- norikki 10y ago
  "We will write off those with opposing views as evil or ignorant or stupid, rather than as interlocutors worthy of consideration. We succumb to the all-purpose ad hominem because it is easier and more comforting than rational argument. But when we do, we abandon what is great about this institution we serve." What a bigot right?
- matt_wulfeck 10y ago
  > What happens when we give these people (alt right, bigots, etc) platforms is they get followers. Who are you to draw that line? This argument hinges on the belief that people attending these universities are not capable of critical and rational thought and should therefore be treated like children via a curated and censored list of speakers. If you do believe that, then I hope you see that censorship does nothing but perpetuate a cycle of intellectual infantilism. Have some faith in the truth. If it is true, then it will stand on its own, and if it is false it will eventually be exposed. For that to happen there must be debate.
BatFastard 10y ago
We need a system that encourages students to discuss topics based on "facts", no who screams or bullies that other party. Certainly there are subjects which are indeed subjective. But there are many that are not. And in the process of uncovering these facts as the basis for an argument, one may learn...
chetanahuja 10y ago
I agree with most of the article about academic environments being open to vigorous debate among opposing ideas. But I find this phrase: "diversity of thought" problematic. Not because I don't actually value diversity in philosophies or modes of thinking, but because the phrase itself has been used recently as a weasel phrase by reactionary forces acting to scale back decades of work to improve actual diversity of backgrounds including race, national origin, genders, sexualities etc. in the workplace and positions of power. I'm not accusing him of using it deliberately in that sense but I think it's important to keep that connotation of this phrase in mind while discussing his talk.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  >"to scale back decades of work" If I say something controversial, I don't automatically undo decades of change. The impact of a statement grows as more people react to it. If you disagree with a statement, the best response is to debate and illuminate the foundations of the statement. This isn't directed at you per se, but in general I hope people come to understand the Streisand effect is an observable phenomenon. I'd even go as far as saying it was a major contributor in getting Trump elected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
- abandonliberty 10y ago
  If you stop using values or words because they can be abused by those with an agenda you will find it hard to communicate anything of significance.
- thetruthseeker1 10y ago
  Any idea that can't be tested or challenged at any point of time, I am worried about such an idea. No idea is fundamentally true or absolutely right in all contexts. I am a liberal and a progressive, but there are many progressive ideas that have failed and thanks to that.
lsiebert 10y ago
I think the growing threat from within has much more to do with the ballooning costs of higher education, and the way that higher education no longer means a better life, and sometimes a worse one, with crushing student loan debt ruining credit ratings.
bjd2385 10y ago
I disagree with almost everything Etchemendy states here. Having been a student at a private institution, public university and community college, his (rather liberal) arguments simply aren't grounded in reality. Perhaps he should go and live in the dorms, where scam after scam after scam is apparent. From dining/meal plans to textbooks and all of the additional fees we're charged, while the college builds millions of dollars of new buildings, facilities and infrastructure. Education is no longer about education (not that it ever was, but in a time long past---perhaps when he was getting _his_ education---it was a closer ratio), it's about money. And all I feel I'm going to get from them for my money in the end is a piece of paper. Everything I learn while I'm there is on me. In short, I think we should tax the hell out of them if it's for the benefit of the American taxpayers. When Universities, creditors and banks see numbers double [1], all they do is build twice as fast, hire twice as many adjuncts and raise tuition. Sources: [1] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/times-up-student-loan-interest-rates-set-to-double/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/times-up-student-loan-in...
- abandonliberty 10y ago
  >I disagree with almost everything Etchemendy states here. Do you? The central point is: >I have watched a growing intolerance . . . a kind of intellectual intolerance, a political one-sidedness, that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for. It manifests itself in many ways: in the intellectual monocultures that have taken over certain disciplines; in the demands to disinvite speakers and outlaw groups whose views we find offensive; in constant calls for the university itself to take political stands. We decry certain news outlets as echo chambers, while we fail to notice the echo chamber we’ve built around ourselves. You may want to reread the article because it appears you're missing the point.
jmarbach 10y ago
There are a few diamonds in the rough of academia who are still promoting free speech. Look to recipients of the Alexander Meiklejohn Award for Academic Freedom for examples: https://www.aaup.org/about/awards/alexander-meiklejohn-award-academic-freedom https://www.aaup.org/about/awards/alexander-meiklejohn-award... Alexander Meiklejohn was a former president of Amherst College and a staunch defender of the First Amendment and the ALCU. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Meiklejohn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Meiklejohn
babesh 10y ago
Selective outrage over free speech is biased. If you take a stand for free speech you do it both inside and outside the institution. Where is his outrage over lies and hate speech from the President? Words can be weapons and quelling one side only is arming the other.
jimmies 10y ago
A couple of days ago, I was reading a status update from my Chinese friend (who is quite intelligent) about Chinese students protesting Dalai Lama's graduation speech at UC San Diego [1] under the name of inclusion and diversity. For anyone who isn't familiar with the affairs, Dalai Lama is exiled from Tibet which is considered part of China in many Chinese people's point of view. One of his arguments was that people have blocked anti-LGBT rights and anti-BLM people because it hurts the feelings of the students in respective groups. Then, why is it not reasonable to block the Dalai Lama because it hurts the feelings of many Chinese students on campus? After reading that, I sighed really loudly and went on with my day. 1: https://qz.com/908922/chinese-students-at-ucsd-are-evoking-diversity-to-justify-their-opposition-to-the-dalai-lamas-graduation-speech/ https://qz.com/908922/chinese-students-at-ucsd-are-evoking-d...
thetruthseeker1 10y ago
I agree with this article 100%. If universities are worried about "ignorant" people spreading misinformation (if they give a podium to people who they think are un-intellectual), what the university could do is have a framework on how such ideas or all ideas are communicated. With some rules and fact checking guidelines in place, it is possible to hear the opposing (or what is viewed as un-intellectual view point ) with proper analysis.
- thetruthseeker1 10y ago
  Not sure why I got down voted. What I am saying here is - from the university point of view, if universities are worried that the platform is used for spreading fears via nonintellectual arguments, they can create a framework to mitigate such problems... I dont know why I got downvoted, please attempt to understand the point I am making here before down voting me. I dont think universities should shut down the other side, but they can create a framework for communicating ideas .... one way OXFORD does it is via debating (which you can find on youtube).
abandonliberty 10y ago
Let's not forget Erika Christakis who was bullied into not teaching at Yale after she suggested that colleges be about free speech and debate rather than censorship. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new... There's tons of stories like this one. What John misses is that this isn't a university problem. It's a society problem.
- josephagoss 10y ago
  Perhaps the focus on university is somewhat a good thing, as oftentimes that's where some change can originate from. A lot people's views are often formed in their university years.
  - abandonliberty 10y ago
    I really want you to convince me of this right now :) I'm not a psychologist or sociologist, but there's a lot of evidence this forms earlier, via peer group, media, and parenting. Unfortunately universities are capitalist organizations with all the accompanying weaknesses. We'll only see action from them if the probable return of action is positive.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Unfortunately universities are capitalist organizations Most traditional universities are either state institutions or private charity nonprofits, neither of which are "capitalist organizations" in any normal sense of the word.
tps5 10y ago
No matter how much a university in 2017 might laud free speech, that university is not going to invite a speaker who openly advocates for genocide. When you accept this, you accept that "censorship" is unavoidable. Some ideas will not be given a platform because of that platform's perceived (correctly or not) distance from the mainstream. There is no society that has ever existed where this is not the case. So the question is: which views should be denied a platform? Obviously there's no perfect way to answer this question, but it seems to me that the solution to this problem isn't as difficult as this essay claims. I think that, quite clearly, the criteria that define acceptable speech on a college campus need to change. Specifically, those criteria must expand. Dissenting views need to be given a platform, even if they make some students uncomfortable.
- bpodgursky 10y ago
  I don't see any good reason for universities to use different standards than the courts have used for the first amendment -- open calls for violence can be censored (your genocide example), just about everything else is fair game. Of course, the speakers with the most universally unpalatable views aren't going to get invited (by student groups) because they won't get enough attendees to fill an auditorium or be worth the hassle. But that's unrelated to whether the university should allow it.
  - richardwhiuk 10y ago
    Why are open calls to violence the standard? How marked does the call need to be? What does the violence need to look like? Is displacing people a violent act? Is yelling abuse at people a violent act - or are we so naive that only direct physical contact constitutes a violent act? This is not an easy problem, and 'open calls to violence' are not a trivial solution. I also fear universities which seek to over-represent minority points for the sake of balance, in the same way that news programs often do.
    - mc32 10y ago
      I think the line has to be physical violence, else we'd allow very few people to speak as any other interpretation kind of dismisses just about anything and everything: Abortion rights Abortion opponents Trade agreements etc.
ultrahate 10y ago
Wow!!!!! Stanford is the last place on earth that I'd expect to actually confront university PC culture. What an exciting discussion that will follow this!
rebootthesystem 10y ago
This took real guts. Remarkable. In "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" one of the most important habits (my opinion) is: "Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood" This is incredibly important and it can only be achieved through dialogue. Regrettably our universities have become some of the most intolerant and bigoted mono-culture environments around. What kids are exposed to is nothing less than indoctrination with caustic effects. These kids don't arrive at university with such ideologies but the ideas are pounded into their heads by often-militant professors who, due to their twisted, intolerant and one-sided ideology should, in reality, be kept as far away from kids as humanly possible. Yet, as the article states, universities have, over time, become echo chambers for a single world view that is violently intolerant of anything that does not align with their ideology. This is wrong and it will eventually have consequences, again, as explained in the article. Bravo.
toehead2000 10y ago
How long until this guy gets screamed at by students claiming he made them feel unsafe and then is forced to resign?
- tomp 10y ago
  That's at most one inconvenient fact away (e.g. that there are more extremely smart men than extremely smart women).
nether 10y ago
https://youtu.be/iKcWu0tsiZM https://youtu.be/iKcWu0tsiZM
carsongross 10y ago
Always interesting when the (anonymous) upvote to supportive comment ratio is as high as it is for this submission.
castle-bravo 10y ago
PC culture has been in the headlines a lot recently, so instead of addressing the progressive thought police, I was hoping that the author might say something about the other ways in which the universities are eating themselves alive. What of the transition from full-time tenured faculty to adjuncts with little income, less job security, and who are terrified of students' reviews? Should universities continue to shift away from employing instructors and researchers, and towards supporting increasingly byzantine hierarchies of administrators? What of the publish-or-perish imperative that emphasizes quantity over quality, and shiny new results over testing results obtained elsewhere? What of dramatic inflation in tuition costs and resulting student debt? It seems to me that these factors are all slowly undoing the universities. It'd be really interesting to hear a high-ranking administrator discuss these issues seriously instead of carefully confessing his preference for free speech over highly charged identity politics (which is a totally safe and uncontroversial thing to do).

176 points by sloanesturz 10y ago

The true enemy of a government is its population. The true enemy of university administrators is the students and faculty. The threat from within.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

thinkmassive 10y ago

"The first step is to remind our students and colleagues that those who hold views contrary to one’s own are rarely evil or stupid, and may know or understand things that we do not." In a single word: empathize This is a growing problem in far places more than just universities. It's amplified by the filter bubbles in which most of us participate, whether we realize it or not, thanks to social media and targeted advertising.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
That's not empathy at all. It's reason.
- yarou 10y ago
  "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Skepticism doesn't entail blocking out viewpoints you disagree with. You automatically lose an argument if you refuse to engage with your detractor.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    > You automatically lose an argument if you refuse to engage with your detractor. Nah. If someone who believes the Earth is flat is willing to spend 12 hours a day arguing on forums, your best move is to refuse to engage. You will never convince them, and they will always outlast you and feel victorious.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      Oh god ^this. There is a particularly broken specimen of human on a skeptical website who's username reflects his obsession, "Sfseaserpent". He believes that there is a sea serpent, essentially a biblical dragon, living in the San Francisco bay. There is no amount of debating or reasoning which can move him one iota, and the most you can achieve is to cause him to stop acknowledging your existence for a time. I have had experience elsewhere with someone who trolls various forums in an effort to spread the "good word" about Jehova. Sometimes, "The only winning move is not to play." It's not always the case, and sure, that line can be used as an excuse by people in bad faith to avoid an argument; it's still the prudent course sometimes.
      - thinkmassive 10y ago
        This sounds like the textbook definition of trolling. If you honestly believe the sea serpent guy I think you're probably the one being taken for a ride. You're right with the Wargames quote in any case though.
        M_Grey 10y ago
        I've never engaged with him personally, but having seen him over literally many years, I doubt that he's anything other than a sincere maniac. He's not good at getting a rise out of people... he always ends up being the one to lose his temper and flame OUT. Same with the Jehovah's Witness. Trolls are there, all over the place, but there are "True Believers" too, and they're even more immovable and pointless.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      I think it was meant more in the general sense, not the absolute. Naturally you have to ascertain the good faith and sanity of your potential counterpart, but in general, there's a difference between attempting to have a discussion and being unable to find common ground in a reasonable time frame and flat out refusing to engage with someone whose beliefs you've illegitimately labeled taboo. The issue is not that people make a serious and earnest effort to understand the opposing side, but tire before they're able to understand the other POV. The issue is rather that they apply one or more of a handful of ethereal, unfalsifiable labels to their opponent, and then believe that gives them license to dismiss the opponent's POV out of hand without addressing or processing it. When such people hear something challenging to their favored notions, instead of saying "Wow, I'll need to think about that", they say "You're a [bigot|racist|%phobe|redneck|yuppie|commie|socialist|...].", mutter additional insults under their breath, tell you not to try to show your disgusting ignorant face around here anymore or else, and pat themselves on the back for their righteousness while they walk away.
  - chetanahuja 10y ago
    "You automatically lose an argument if you refuse to engage with your detractor." You just described the battle cry of the eternal troll. Your freedom of speech does not equal me being forced to listen to you.
- rukuu001 10y ago
  Empathy is a tool for the effective communication of reason.
  - whoopdedo 10y ago
    More to the point, communication is necessary for empathy, and thus reason. If you don't tell me what you think and engage me in dialog, there's no way for me to come to an understanding of your manner of thinking and thus synthesize a compromise between our opposing viewpoints. Instead, what I encounter more often is if I don't immediately agree with someone they say, "we have to agree to disagree." Which is no agreement at all. It's shutting down communication and preventing me from understanding why we disagree. I learn nothing from people who say that to me and find it frustrating.
- yongjik 10y ago
  The word "reason" (or its friend, "logic") is misused so many times that it has become basically a marketing term. The most outrageous instigators branded themselves with "reason", from Nazi to Marxists to 9/11 hoaxers to alt-right. Have you ever heard someone arguing "Reason is on their side"?
babesh 10y ago
That is not a universal truth. It can often be true. In the real world there is also hate speech, lying, cheating, and bullying and it is far from rare. You need to figure out which one it is.
- babesh 10y ago
  Reminds me that supposedly debate in Greece originated in trying to convince others of your side rather than as a means of understanding the other side. If you go to high school debate you see this played out. Neither side arrives at the truth and many viewpoints favoring neither side get left out.
  - alexryan 10y ago
    Agreed. The tendency to cling to views and debate rather than pursue truth is extremely unfortunate. Sam Harris gave a talk on this subject that I found quite interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOL3kUHjp2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOL3kUHjp2Y
- vkou 10y ago
  Not to mention sealioning.
- dandersh 10y ago
  And in order to be able to do so you have to exposed to all of the above...as well as legitimate viewpoints that can be conflated with all of the above.
dandersh 10y ago
Before you can empathize you have to be sincerely curious, "What is it that they're seeing that I don't?". Unfortunately the lack of intellectual curiosity, the disinterest in thinking critically, is something that has infected universities from the outside and universities have been powerless to stop it. Personally my favorite memory of college was talking politics with a professor who was opposite of me on the traditional political spectrum on almost everything. We enjoyed talking to each other, we argued quite a bit, but I learned a lot. The most important thing I learned was that despite all of our differences we agreed on more than I would have possibly imagined.
- thinkmassive 10y ago
  I enjoy a friendly political debate, but only in very small groups. Beyond 2-4 people and it's difficult for everyone present to participate enough to feel they're genuinely being heard. A one-on-one conversation with a college professor sounds excellent. On the other hand, I'm having difficulty thinking of any particular area where it would be beneficial to have an entire institution limiting itself to a single belief.

narrator 10y ago

He's right that ad hominem is intellectually lazy. People should be ashamed of themselves, especially if they consider themselves to be academics, if that's the only argument they want to use in a debate.

vxxxxxxxxxxxxx 10y ago

While I don't disagree with the substance of this essay -- I think this point needs to be made, and this discussion needs to be had -- it's very difficult to offer "open forums for contentious debate" when certain speakers have built showmanship out of their propensity to offend. This fits most definitions of deliberate trolling, and isn't a productive recipe for reasoned debate, protests and boycotts by the populace drive home the point that the speaker's views are already well-known, and not welcome at all. Similarly, some brave institutions may decide to host speakers that are near-universally condemned for views that society has decided to be abhorrent. By giving such speakers a forum, they're endorsing that such views are worthy of being heard or debated, whether they are enthused by those ramifications or not. Such behavior requires calculated risk, risk that may pay off if attitudes change in the future.

rspeer 10y ago
Yeah, he has a point in the abstract, but this would have been better timed before Steve Bannon took over the executive branch and basically broke the Overton window. It's intellectually lazy to dismiss views via ad-hominem attacks, but it's also intellectually lazy to consider all views morally equivalent. White supremacy has entered the political discourse and it does not deserve equal time.
- josephorjoe 10y ago
  It is worse than lazy to consider all views morally equivalent. It is aiding and abetting evil. It actively undermines reasoned discourse. This is the point Jon Stewart was trying to make way back in 2004 when he took down Crossfire. The situation clearly has not improved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_(TV_series)#Jon_Stewart.27s_appearance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_(TV_series)#Jon_Stew...
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
    Except for your last point about Jon Stewart, your point could easily have been made by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada Once you have a moral compass that is not even open to debate, it is a short step to suppressing all debate and even persecution of the "filthy scum" that dare question your morals.

robertpateii 10y ago

It's good they're talking about this. But I'm surprised there's no mention of the "more speech" quote, how old this issue is, and how clearly the solution has been declared by the supreme court over the years (discussion not silence). "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." -- Justice Brandeis, 1927. I'd never read the whole opinion until just now. It's great and the paragraph that quote comes from is stirring. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/357#pg_377 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/357#pg_377 edit\addendum: ACLU has a FAQ on this issue that directly addresses the universities: https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus

ci5er 10y ago
This is maybe orthogonal to the point, but i receive more than a little bed-time satisfaction by reading supreme court decisions. Those judges ain't dummies!
- robertpateii 10y ago
  Definitely! You'll probably appreciate this podcast if you haven't already heard it: http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolabmoreperfect http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolabmoreperfect
hvs 10y ago
Many people seem to have forgotten about the Nazis vs. Village of Skokie case from the 70's. The Nazis were defended by the ACLU. This idea that "hate speech" isn't protected by the 1st amendment is a weird development that has no basis in law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...

aswanson 10y ago

No mention of the ridiculous amount of wealth a university education costs, the lack of economic education in the formal track and how the academic class (of which the author is a member) is rendered mostly immune from forces most of their students will have to face (investment for retirement, time value of money, etc). But yeah, free speech to yell at homosexuals and feminists and minorities and all that. Most important thing in my fucking life.

HoppedUpMenace 10y ago
The point is being made that free speech is being suppressed by the very people who should wholeheartedly support and debate it, being that college is the appropriate place to do such things. The author is also pointing out that it has far greater negative implications on the world at present than any other current issue facing college campuses.
- aswanson 10y ago
  "it has far greater negative implications on the world at present than any other current issue facing college campuses." I call bullshit. The price of college, the elevation of it's utility in our society, and the economic illiteracy of most of it's professors and attendant lack of preparation of it's students all present far more danger to society in the long term than blocking a speech from Milo or some other overblown vacuous controversy surrounding "free speech".
calibraxis 10y ago
Yes, the costs result in obvious discrimination against the poor and working class.

uptownfunk 10y ago

I think this is phenomenon is itself a byproduct of the education system, more specifically that liberal values and ideals are seen as more intellectually correct. In fact I think liberals are as guilty of this occurring as the conservatives. Part of the solution should be in consciously emphasizing the need for empathetic listening and respect (though not necessarily agreement) for the opinions of others even if they conflict with our own "intellectually superior" liberal values. Once that becomes embedded in the educational culture we can begin to see a turnaround.

chetanahuja 10y ago
"liberal values and ideals are seen as more intellectually correct" The irony here is of course is that those complaining about not being heard on campuses today are actually the most privileged members of western society who support restrictions on media and suppression of freedoms for marginalized groups. Tolerance as a value can't survive if the tolerant are required to provide a platform to the intolerant.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

didibus 10y ago

"But we all need worthy opponents to challenge us in our search for truth." That's the problem, where's the worthy opponent? I'm sure they exist, but I rarely see or hear of them. I see a lot of demagogues, and those are not worthy by definition and should not be brought into the conversation especially in a University. Bring us worthy opponents and I'm sure there won't be protests from students.

striking 10y ago
How would you establish a definition for "worthy"? I'm almost certain your definition would differ from someone else's. It's for that reason that I don't think we should prevent anyone from speaking. The only solution is more speech. Also: Universities are doing a pretty poor job of bringing in certain kinds of speakers. If you want change, make it.
- BatFastard 10y ago
  I would posit that Trump is not a worthy opponent. He does not use facts and reason for his arguments. He uses bullying and lies, that makes him "unworthy" in my eyes.
  - jokipoki 10y ago
    .
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      If you get flagged for deliberate trolling, that's not proving the point of the article. Trump refuses facts. It doesn't matter whether you think he got to the right or wrong viewpoint, he is objectively not a worthy debater. He does not explain why you should think something, back it up with true statements, and meaningfully respond to counterpoints and criticism. I don't care what you voted, but you have not named a 'worthy opponent' for didibus.
      - 10y ago

moultano 10y ago

I mostly buy this and see the problem. I wonder though if the "marketplace of ideas" will become a naive notion. If the memetic success of an idea becomes totally uncoupled from its truth or virtue, then evolution will not select memes that benefit us. We are exposed to way more high fitness memes than ever before, and I'm not sure we are capable of effectively resisting them. We are becoming unwitting hosts. In a world of weaponized memes, the battlegrounds may be entirely in controlling their exposure and thus their R0.

lucio 10y ago
The success of ideas having real-world impact, are never uncoupled from reality. Memes, as Genes, impact the real world, so Reality and Reason can determine fitness.
- moultano 10y ago
  Maybe, but I worry that we are now exposed to more memes than lived experiences, so their power to overcome reality is increased. People have extremely strong opinions about things they have no first hand exposure to. I worry that the increase in polarization is simply people having opinions about more things. If that's the cause, I don't see a way back.

_rpd 10y ago

While this letter appears to be sincere, it is willfully ignorant of the decades long shift of some academic departments from a stance of "ivory tower" objectivity to the deliberate choice to use their prestige and power as political activists. It isn't like they are hypocritically pretending to be objective, they actively sneer at people who make the attempt.

marricks 10y ago

I think it's rather odd to take a stand for "everyone's right to speak" when many speakers openly hate liberal institutions and really don't seem to have any regard for facts or knowledge. Platforms to speech is what gives these people power, and if teachers and students say they don't want to condone those views, tied with racism and sexism, I think that should be respected. What happens when we give these people (alt right, bigots, etc) platforms is they get followers. Look at the British National Party, they were piratically nothing until the BBC decided to massively increase their coverage. Was the BBC's coverage fair and impartial? Probably, but just giving them the attention causes people to look into their platform and realize blaming everyone else is a pretty comforting thing to do rather than take responsibility. The deep question is who should be the gatekeepers, and I guess John Etchemendy is saying it shouldn't be universities. Perhaps he's right in a way, the board shouldn't be making those decisions. I do think the faculty and students do have a right and duty to though as giving platforms for hate speech empowers it.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
norikki 10y ago
"We will write off those with opposing views as evil or ignorant or stupid, rather than as interlocutors worthy of consideration. We succumb to the all-purpose ad hominem because it is easier and more comforting than rational argument. But when we do, we abandon what is great about this institution we serve." What a bigot right?
matt_wulfeck 10y ago
> What happens when we give these people (alt right, bigots, etc) platforms is they get followers. Who are you to draw that line? This argument hinges on the belief that people attending these universities are not capable of critical and rational thought and should therefore be treated like children via a curated and censored list of speakers. If you do believe that, then I hope you see that censorship does nothing but perpetuate a cycle of intellectual infantilism. Have some faith in the truth. If it is true, then it will stand on its own, and if it is false it will eventually be exposed. For that to happen there must be debate.

BatFastard 10y ago

We need a system that encourages students to discuss topics based on "facts", no who screams or bullies that other party. Certainly there are subjects which are indeed subjective. But there are many that are not. And in the process of uncovering these facts as the basis for an argument, one may learn...

chetanahuja 10y ago

I agree with most of the article about academic environments being open to vigorous debate among opposing ideas. But I find this phrase: "diversity of thought" problematic. Not because I don't actually value diversity in philosophies or modes of thinking, but because the phrase itself has been used recently as a weasel phrase by reactionary forces acting to scale back decades of work to improve actual diversity of backgrounds including race, national origin, genders, sexualities etc. in the workplace and positions of power. I'm not accusing him of using it deliberately in that sense but I think it's important to keep that connotation of this phrase in mind while discussing his talk.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
>"to scale back decades of work" If I say something controversial, I don't automatically undo decades of change. The impact of a statement grows as more people react to it. If you disagree with a statement, the best response is to debate and illuminate the foundations of the statement. This isn't directed at you per se, but in general I hope people come to understand the Streisand effect is an observable phenomenon. I'd even go as far as saying it was a major contributor in getting Trump elected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
abandonliberty 10y ago
If you stop using values or words because they can be abused by those with an agenda you will find it hard to communicate anything of significance.
thetruthseeker1 10y ago
Any idea that can't be tested or challenged at any point of time, I am worried about such an idea. No idea is fundamentally true or absolutely right in all contexts. I am a liberal and a progressive, but there are many progressive ideas that have failed and thanks to that.

lsiebert 10y ago

I think the growing threat from within has much more to do with the ballooning costs of higher education, and the way that higher education no longer means a better life, and sometimes a worse one, with crushing student loan debt ruining credit ratings.

bjd2385 10y ago

I disagree with almost everything Etchemendy states here. Having been a student at a private institution, public university and community college, his (rather liberal) arguments simply aren't grounded in reality. Perhaps he should go and live in the dorms, where scam after scam after scam is apparent. From dining/meal plans to textbooks and all of the additional fees we're charged, while the college builds millions of dollars of new buildings, facilities and infrastructure. Education is no longer about education (not that it ever was, but in a time long past---perhaps when he was getting _his_ education---it was a closer ratio), it's about money. And all I feel I'm going to get from them for my money in the end is a piece of paper. Everything I learn while I'm there is on me. In short, I think we should tax the hell out of them if it's for the benefit of the American taxpayers. When Universities, creditors and banks see numbers double [1], all they do is build twice as fast, hire twice as many adjuncts and raise tuition. Sources: [1] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/times-up-student-loan-interest-rates-set-to-double/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/times-up-student-loan-in...

abandonliberty 10y ago
>I disagree with almost everything Etchemendy states here. Do you? The central point is: >I have watched a growing intolerance . . . a kind of intellectual intolerance, a political one-sidedness, that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for. It manifests itself in many ways: in the intellectual monocultures that have taken over certain disciplines; in the demands to disinvite speakers and outlaw groups whose views we find offensive; in constant calls for the university itself to take political stands. We decry certain news outlets as echo chambers, while we fail to notice the echo chamber we’ve built around ourselves. You may want to reread the article because it appears you're missing the point.

jmarbach 10y ago

There are a few diamonds in the rough of academia who are still promoting free speech. Look to recipients of the Alexander Meiklejohn Award for Academic Freedom for examples: https://www.aaup.org/about/awards/alexander-meiklejohn-award-academic-freedom https://www.aaup.org/about/awards/alexander-meiklejohn-award... Alexander Meiklejohn was a former president of Amherst College and a staunch defender of the First Amendment and the ALCU. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Meiklejohn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Meiklejohn

babesh 10y ago

Selective outrage over free speech is biased. If you take a stand for free speech you do it both inside and outside the institution. Where is his outrage over lies and hate speech from the President? Words can be weapons and quelling one side only is arming the other.

jimmies 10y ago

A couple of days ago, I was reading a status update from my Chinese friend (who is quite intelligent) about Chinese students protesting Dalai Lama's graduation speech at UC San Diego [1] under the name of inclusion and diversity. For anyone who isn't familiar with the affairs, Dalai Lama is exiled from Tibet which is considered part of China in many Chinese people's point of view. One of his arguments was that people have blocked anti-LGBT rights and anti-BLM people because it hurts the feelings of the students in respective groups. Then, why is it not reasonable to block the Dalai Lama because it hurts the feelings of many Chinese students on campus? After reading that, I sighed really loudly and went on with my day. 1: https://qz.com/908922/chinese-students-at-ucsd-are-evoking-diversity-to-justify-their-opposition-to-the-dalai-lamas-graduation-speech/ https://qz.com/908922/chinese-students-at-ucsd-are-evoking-d...

thetruthseeker1 10y ago

I agree with this article 100%. If universities are worried about "ignorant" people spreading misinformation (if they give a podium to people who they think are un-intellectual), what the university could do is have a framework on how such ideas or all ideas are communicated. With some rules and fact checking guidelines in place, it is possible to hear the opposing (or what is viewed as un-intellectual view point ) with proper analysis.

thetruthseeker1 10y ago
Not sure why I got down voted. What I am saying here is - from the university point of view, if universities are worried that the platform is used for spreading fears via nonintellectual arguments, they can create a framework to mitigate such problems... I dont know why I got downvoted, please attempt to understand the point I am making here before down voting me. I dont think universities should shut down the other side, but they can create a framework for communicating ideas .... one way OXFORD does it is via debating (which you can find on youtube).

abandonliberty 10y ago

Let's not forget Erika Christakis who was bullied into not teaching at Yale after she suggested that colleges be about free speech and debate rather than censorship. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new... There's tons of stories like this one. What John misses is that this isn't a university problem. It's a society problem.

josephagoss 10y ago
Perhaps the focus on university is somewhat a good thing, as oftentimes that's where some change can originate from. A lot people's views are often formed in their university years.
- abandonliberty 10y ago
  I really want you to convince me of this right now :) I'm not a psychologist or sociologist, but there's a lot of evidence this forms earlier, via peer group, media, and parenting. Unfortunately universities are capitalist organizations with all the accompanying weaknesses. We'll only see action from them if the probable return of action is positive.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Unfortunately universities are capitalist organizations Most traditional universities are either state institutions or private charity nonprofits, neither of which are "capitalist organizations" in any normal sense of the word.

tps5 10y ago

No matter how much a university in 2017 might laud free speech, that university is not going to invite a speaker who openly advocates for genocide. When you accept this, you accept that "censorship" is unavoidable. Some ideas will not be given a platform because of that platform's perceived (correctly or not) distance from the mainstream. There is no society that has ever existed where this is not the case. So the question is: which views should be denied a platform? Obviously there's no perfect way to answer this question, but it seems to me that the solution to this problem isn't as difficult as this essay claims. I think that, quite clearly, the criteria that define acceptable speech on a college campus need to change. Specifically, those criteria must expand. Dissenting views need to be given a platform, even if they make some students uncomfortable.

bpodgursky 10y ago
I don't see any good reason for universities to use different standards than the courts have used for the first amendment -- open calls for violence can be censored (your genocide example), just about everything else is fair game. Of course, the speakers with the most universally unpalatable views aren't going to get invited (by student groups) because they won't get enough attendees to fill an auditorium or be worth the hassle. But that's unrelated to whether the university should allow it.
- richardwhiuk 10y ago
  Why are open calls to violence the standard? How marked does the call need to be? What does the violence need to look like? Is displacing people a violent act? Is yelling abuse at people a violent act - or are we so naive that only direct physical contact constitutes a violent act? This is not an easy problem, and 'open calls to violence' are not a trivial solution. I also fear universities which seek to over-represent minority points for the sake of balance, in the same way that news programs often do.
  - mc32 10y ago
    I think the line has to be physical violence, else we'd allow very few people to speak as any other interpretation kind of dismisses just about anything and everything: Abortion rights Abortion opponents Trade agreements etc.

ultrahate 10y ago

Wow!!!!! Stanford is the last place on earth that I'd expect to actually confront university PC culture. What an exciting discussion that will follow this!

rebootthesystem 10y ago

This took real guts. Remarkable. In "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" one of the most important habits (my opinion) is: "Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood" This is incredibly important and it can only be achieved through dialogue. Regrettably our universities have become some of the most intolerant and bigoted mono-culture environments around. What kids are exposed to is nothing less than indoctrination with caustic effects. These kids don't arrive at university with such ideologies but the ideas are pounded into their heads by often-militant professors who, due to their twisted, intolerant and one-sided ideology should, in reality, be kept as far away from kids as humanly possible. Yet, as the article states, universities have, over time, become echo chambers for a single world view that is violently intolerant of anything that does not align with their ideology. This is wrong and it will eventually have consequences, again, as explained in the article. Bravo.

toehead2000 10y ago

How long until this guy gets screamed at by students claiming he made them feel unsafe and then is forced to resign?

tomp 10y ago
That's at most one inconvenient fact away (e.g. that there are more extremely smart men than extremely smart women).

nether 10y ago

https://youtu.be/iKcWu0tsiZM https://youtu.be/iKcWu0tsiZM

carsongross 10y ago

Always interesting when the (anonymous) upvote to supportive comment ratio is as high as it is for this submission.

castle-bravo 10y ago

PC culture has been in the headlines a lot recently, so instead of addressing the progressive thought police, I was hoping that the author might say something about the other ways in which the universities are eating themselves alive. What of the transition from full-time tenured faculty to adjuncts with little income, less job security, and who are terrified of students' reviews? Should universities continue to shift away from employing instructors and researchers, and towards supporting increasingly byzantine hierarchies of administrators? What of the publish-or-perish imperative that emphasizes quantity over quality, and shiny new results over testing results obtained elsewhere? What of dramatic inflation in tuition costs and resulting student debt? It seems to me that these factors are all slowly undoing the universities. It'd be really interesting to hear a high-ranking administrator discuss these issues seriously instead of carefully confessing his preference for free speech over highly charged identity politics (which is a totally safe and uncontroversial thing to do).