6 ms·

Free Expression of Professors and Its Prudential Limits

26 points by worldvoyageur 6y ago

xhkkffbf 6y ago
All of these apologies for setting limits always assume that someone wise will make wise decisions about where to draw the line. The world, though, may not have enough wise people to go around.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  Interestingly, the limit the original article was talking about was limiting partisanship and superficiality, which is especially ironic given the issue today. (Remember the really dumb attempt to "cancel" Pinker?) If the original supporters of limits were around today to enforce their limits, they would spend most of their energy on the very same people that are calling for limits today.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Whether there was ever a serious attempt to "cancel Pinker" or not, his acquaintance with and support of Epstein is notable as an occasion on which Pinker has later admitted being wrong about something.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The author here isn't calling for limits to be enforced by fiat. He's calling for professors and universities to take individual responsibility for avoiding overt politicization, and acknowledging the fact that if they fail to do so external voices will inevitably swoop in to start controlling their speech.
hirundo 6y ago
"This brings us to the most serious difficulty of this problem; namely, the dangers connected with the existence in a democracy of an overwhelming and concentrated public opinion. The tendency of modern democracy is for men to think alike, to feel alike, and to speak alike. Any departure from the conventional standards is apt to be regarded with suspicion. Public opinion is at once the chief safeguard of a democracy, and the chief menace to the real liberty of the individual" "An inviolable refuge from such tyranny should be found in the university." So if one professor is a Marxist/capitalist, they are an asset. If all professors are either one, it is a liability to the mission of the university as a refuge of heterogeneous thought. Yet if we select professors based only on their idiosyncratic opinions we're as likely to fill the roster with well spoken insane people as with strong independent thinkers. I'd prefer to attend a university filled with insane but unique teachers -- who are otherwise competent in their fields -- than with a homogeneous mass who I happen to agree with. Sure, strong independent thinkers would be better, but if I could pick just one...
- whatshisface 6y ago
  It sounds like you might be looking at this with a little bit of humanities tunnel vision. In science, 99% of everything one person says will be agreed on by anyone else who knows what they're talking about. Even in cases where the truth is not yet known, among reasonable people you are more likely to find "they both agree that it could go either way," than "the two sides are each convinced the other is completely wrong."
  - mdifrgechd 6y ago
    That may be true for introductory level material bu t in my experience is not true at all of research in the hard sciences. Where actual advances in the state of the art are involved, there are debates about everything from the best approach to the interpretation of results. Science as consensus is an oversimplification used by people who don't want to hear other opinions.
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      The debate only happens over a tiny fraction of all claims, and reasonable people don't believe that fraction until it joins the high-confidence whole. The phenomenon of disjoint ideologies does not exist in science. In the humanities, you have things like how Analytic philosophers will reject everything ever written by a Continental philosopher. In contrast, while there is such a thing as an analytic chemist there is no such thing as a Continental chemist. ;)
      - hummmmm 6y ago
        It sounds like you might be looking at this with a little bit of hard-sciences, logocentric tunnel vision. In humanities, 99% of all claims one makes will be actively contemplated, to see if the argument holds. Even in cases where the truth seems totally certain, among reasonable people you are more likely to find "we should remain skeptical, critical, and open-minded about unverified truth claims" than "yep, that thing that seems certainly, definitely true is completely true."
foolinaround 6y ago
FTA : "The teacher ought also to be especially on his guard against taking unfair advantage of the student's immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher's own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own. It is not the least service which a college or university may render to those under its instruction, to habituate them to looking not only patiently but methodically on both sides, before adopting any conclusion upon controverted issues." The above is even more important in schools, where teachers impose their ideology on even younger students, who have no concept of multiple opinions. This can only be called brainwashing.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  If that's what happens, I guess so. I (once a kid) had teachers, and very few if any would do that. They were willing to explain their reasons and to leave open interpretations. They were educators not indoctrinators.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  I mean the 1619 project is education as indoctrination and it's making it's way into curriculum. The aim isn't to educate (i.e. teach how to think, explore knowledge, form and examine arguments, etc.; not what to think) but form opinion and install ideology.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    By simply saying "The aim isn't to educate [...] but form opinion and install ideology" you're doing exactly what you're accusing them of, which is to make an unsubstantiated claim and expect others to believe it. Aim higher.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Can you elaborate on your concern? The authors of the 1619 project agree that it's not a neutral historical review - the lead author has consistently said that it's "reframing history", "using history and reporting to make an argument", "explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative". It's infeasible to expect commenters to provide detailed citations for every fact they reference.
rajekas 6y ago
The crucial line in the 1914 report was 'the university is, indeed, likely always to exercise a certain form of conservative influence.' Not conservative in the political sense as I read it but in the sense of being slow moving, of having a sense of history and tradition, honoring both. And a place where creativity as well as radicalism is tempered with caution. I don't think that's compatible either with 'disruptive innovation' or with 'cancel culture' both of which strike me as two aspects of the same phenomenon. Or with 'publish or perish' for that matter.

26 points by worldvoyageur 6y ago

All of these apologies for setting limits always assume that someone wise will make wise decisions about where to draw the line. The world, though, may not have enough wise people to go around.

whatshisface 6y ago
Interestingly, the limit the original article was talking about was limiting partisanship and superficiality, which is especially ironic given the issue today. (Remember the really dumb attempt to "cancel" Pinker?) If the original supporters of limits were around today to enforce their limits, they would spend most of their energy on the very same people that are calling for limits today.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Whether there was ever a serious attempt to "cancel Pinker" or not, his acquaintance with and support of Epstein is notable as an occasion on which Pinker has later admitted being wrong about something.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The author here isn't calling for limits to be enforced by fiat. He's calling for professors and universities to take individual responsibility for avoiding overt politicization, and acknowledging the fact that if they fail to do so external voices will inevitably swoop in to start controlling their speech.

hirundo 6y ago

"This brings us to the most serious difficulty of this problem; namely, the dangers connected with the existence in a democracy of an overwhelming and concentrated public opinion. The tendency of modern democracy is for men to think alike, to feel alike, and to speak alike. Any departure from the conventional standards is apt to be regarded with suspicion. Public opinion is at once the chief safeguard of a democracy, and the chief menace to the real liberty of the individual" "An inviolable refuge from such tyranny should be found in the university." So if one professor is a Marxist/capitalist, they are an asset. If all professors are either one, it is a liability to the mission of the university as a refuge of heterogeneous thought. Yet if we select professors based only on their idiosyncratic opinions we're as likely to fill the roster with well spoken insane people as with strong independent thinkers. I'd prefer to attend a university filled with insane but unique teachers -- who are otherwise competent in their fields -- than with a homogeneous mass who I happen to agree with. Sure, strong independent thinkers would be better, but if I could pick just one...

whatshisface 6y ago
It sounds like you might be looking at this with a little bit of humanities tunnel vision. In science, 99% of everything one person says will be agreed on by anyone else who knows what they're talking about. Even in cases where the truth is not yet known, among reasonable people you are more likely to find "they both agree that it could go either way," than "the two sides are each convinced the other is completely wrong."
- mdifrgechd 6y ago
  That may be true for introductory level material bu t in my experience is not true at all of research in the hard sciences. Where actual advances in the state of the art are involved, there are debates about everything from the best approach to the interpretation of results. Science as consensus is an oversimplification used by people who don't want to hear other opinions.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    The debate only happens over a tiny fraction of all claims, and reasonable people don't believe that fraction until it joins the high-confidence whole. The phenomenon of disjoint ideologies does not exist in science. In the humanities, you have things like how Analytic philosophers will reject everything ever written by a Continental philosopher. In contrast, while there is such a thing as an analytic chemist there is no such thing as a Continental chemist. ;)
    - hummmmm 6y ago
      It sounds like you might be looking at this with a little bit of hard-sciences, logocentric tunnel vision. In humanities, 99% of all claims one makes will be actively contemplated, to see if the argument holds. Even in cases where the truth seems totally certain, among reasonable people you are more likely to find "we should remain skeptical, critical, and open-minded about unverified truth claims" than "yep, that thing that seems certainly, definitely true is completely true."

foolinaround 6y ago

FTA : "The teacher ought also to be especially on his guard against taking unfair advantage of the student's immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher's own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own. It is not the least service which a college or university may render to those under its instruction, to habituate them to looking not only patiently but methodically on both sides, before adopting any conclusion upon controverted issues." The above is even more important in schools, where teachers impose their ideology on even younger students, who have no concept of multiple opinions. This can only be called brainwashing.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
If that's what happens, I guess so. I (once a kid) had teachers, and very few if any would do that. They were willing to explain their reasons and to leave open interpretations. They were educators not indoctrinators.
gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
I mean the 1619 project is education as indoctrination and it's making it's way into curriculum. The aim isn't to educate (i.e. teach how to think, explore knowledge, form and examine arguments, etc.; not what to think) but form opinion and install ideology.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  By simply saying "The aim isn't to educate [...] but form opinion and install ideology" you're doing exactly what you're accusing them of, which is to make an unsubstantiated claim and expect others to believe it. Aim higher.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Can you elaborate on your concern? The authors of the 1619 project agree that it's not a neutral historical review - the lead author has consistently said that it's "reframing history", "using history and reporting to make an argument", "explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative". It's infeasible to expect commenters to provide detailed citations for every fact they reference.

rajekas 6y ago

The crucial line in the 1914 report was 'the university is, indeed, likely always to exercise a certain form of conservative influence.' Not conservative in the political sense as I read it but in the sense of being slow moving, of having a sense of history and tradition, honoring both. And a place where creativity as well as radicalism is tempered with caution. I don't think that's compatible either with 'disruptive innovation' or with 'cancel culture' both of which strike me as two aspects of the same phenomenon. Or with 'publish or perish' for that matter.