5 ms·

>Unfireable save for clear violations of policies such as sexual harassment I would take a look at (and consider donating to) FIRE to understand the current st

by rsj_hn 6y ago

>Unfireable save for clear violations of policies such as sexual harassment I would take a look at (and consider donating to) FIRE to understand the current state of academic freedom in universities. https://www.thefire.org/news-and-media/ https://www.thefire.org/news-and-media/ Just to give two examples: Bret Weinstein was fired from Evergreen for not participating in a no-white-people-on-campus day (and he was also subject to credible death threats, requiring police escorts when present on campus) Gordon Klein was suspended for refusing to promise to give higher grades to black students. https://nypost.com/2020/06/10/ucla-suspends-professor-for-refusing-leniency-for-black-students/ https://nypost.com/2020/06/10/ucla-suspends-professor-for-re... And then we have the epidemic of academic mobbing, where colleagues engage in herding behavior that focus their rage on one of their colleagues in a type of modern equivalent of Monsters on Maple Street. It is estimated that 12 percent of those mobbed end up committing suicide. https://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/academic-mobbing-become-campus-tormentors/ https://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/acade... There are many, many things that will get you fired or subject to attack in the modern university, and I don't see any reason to view academia as a place that provides more intellectual freedom than private industry. Indeed, it is often the epicenter of cancel culture and petty utopian dictators.

ggm 6y ago
Not withstanding what you say, how do you counter this with related responses to your parent comment which note corporate research is legally bound and ownership vests strongly in IP law and not your research your brain.
- rsj_hn 6y ago
  My counter is what foolinaround also said in reply to my post. Intellectual freedom is a question of culture, not of any legal or financial apparatus. There was enormous intellectual freedom at the for-profit Bell Labs. There was enormous intellectual freedom in the publicly owned Berkeley in the 70s-80s. The culture present in the organization will determine whether you need to always be on the guard from saying the wrong thing that might destroy your career or whether you are free to challenge incumbent ideas/viewpoints/theories. Personnel is policy. The legal charter of an organization is far down the list of factors that determine how much freedom you have -- the mindset of your peers and of the leadership in the organization matters much, much more.
  - ggm 6y ago
    The evidence to me, late stage career (I was in government, and uni research and then latterly in systems and networks in the uni system, latterly outside in the NFP internet public governance space), is we're off the rails both inside academia and in private industry research. Neither feel like fully open minds.
foolinaround 6y ago
considering that there are no market forces at play in the universities, it is almost guaranteed that intellectual freedom is much lesser due to the very polarizing, take no prisoners approach currently in place. Dissent is not being tolerated, when in former times, it even used to be welcome.
darkarmani 6y ago
Fired? > A settlement was reached in September 2017 in which Weinstein and Heying resigned and received $250,000 each, after having sought $3.8 million in damages. He resigned as part of a settlement when he sued them. The university paid to get rid of him.
- themolecularman 6y ago
  The videos show him getting mobbed by students, the University offered no protection for him. When told that students were going "car to car" looking for them, the University told police not to get involved. It's a radical story and it needs more attention.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
jboog 6y ago
So you have one example of someone being fired at...Evergreen college or whatever And some guy who was temporarily suspended and then immediately reinstated. And this proves profs with tenure have the same or worse protections than employees of private industry? Have you ever heard of "at-will employment"?
- Kranar 6y ago
  The Evergreen example is incorrect, Bret Weinstein was not fired from Evergreen. He sued the college and resigned as part of a settlement in which he and his wife received a combined $500,000 payout.
  - jboog 6y ago
    Wow. even worse. This is one of the things that really annoys me about the anti cancel-culture warriors. I get it, there has been some excess, some poor decisions made, but the hyperbolic, bad faith, and often dishonest framing they often use makes me really suspect of basically anything they say. In MOST states in the US your boss can fire you for NO REASON at all. Or ANY reason save a few federally protected reasons like race/gender etc. That's "at-will" employment. Anyone who tells you this is the same as the protections tenured profs have is a liar or complete moron.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
bachmeier 6y ago
Your comment has nothing to do with the post you're replying to. The post asked something very specific: > How does research in an industrial lab vs. a university work, insofar as independence is concerned?
gowld 6y ago
Your description of Bret Weinstein and Evergreen is substantially inaccurate, perhaps because you read Bret Weinstein's dishonest description of it (linked below). There was no "no-white-people-on-campus" day. There was an optional off-campus field trip for a seminar aimed at people living with a white perspective. Bret Weinstein was not fired. He resigned with $500K severance as part of a settlement agreement arising from his lawsuit against the school for failing to protect him from students who verbally harassed him. Primary Source: https://app.leg.wa.gov/committeeschedules/Home/Document/170557 https://app.leg.wa.gov/committeeschedules/Home/Document/1705... Long-term summary of events: https://www.theolympian.com/news/local/education/article175061841.html https://www.theolympian.com/news/local/education/article1750... Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein#Evergreen_State_College_Day_of_Absence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein#Evergreen_State... Likewise, your description of the Gordon Klein incident was grossly inaccurate, even compared to the right-wing NYPost's version of the events: https://nypost.com/2020/06/10/ucla-suspends-professor-for-refusing-leniency-for-black-students/ https://nypost.com/2020/06/10/ucla-suspends-professor-for-re... He was suspended for unprofessionally mocking his students.
- emmelaich 6y ago
  quoting from your wikipedia link. ... > the event asked white participants to stay off campus That by itself is illiberal and ludicrous.
  - Kranar 6y ago
    Sure, the student organized event asked that white participants who supported this misguided movement stay off campus. Sure, that's a pretty dumb thing to ask of anyone and Bret Weinstein has no obligation to adhere to it, and furthermore adhering to it is pretty dumb... But that's not the college's doing nor is it the college's responsibility.
- flippinburgers 6y ago
  The idea of a no fill-in-the-skin-color day is unbelievably racist.
rmk 6y ago
I realise that the corporatisation of universities and increasing monoculture/groupthink is eroding many of the protections offered to even tenured professors, but that's a different discussion. Do you have anything specific about the topic to add?
jancsika 6y ago
> Bret Weinstein was fired from Evergreen for not participating in a no-white-people-on-campus day Interpretation 1: There was a "no-white-people-on-campus day" at a university, a professor named Bret Weinstein-- a white person-- was on the campus that day (either in defiance or without foreknowledge of the event), and was consequently fired for being white while on campus. Interpretation 2: There was a "no-white-people-on-campus day" at a university where white people were singled out to attend some off-campus event (whether mandatory or optional), Bret Weinstein-- a white professor-- did not attend this off-campus event (whether in defiance or accidentally, whether going on campus, or not), and consequently the university fired Bret Weinstein for his action of not attending an event targeted exclusively at white people. Interpretation 3: You are leaving some crucial detail that explains what actually happened. If #3 isn't the case I'll eat my hat. If it is, you should consider the possibility that some kind of anti-academic axe-grinding is keeping you from writing as clearly as you could about historical events. Edit: clarification
- da_big_ghey 6y ago
  Interpretation 2 is closest to correct. There was a "day of absence", and in 2017, whites were "invited" to leave the campus for the day's activities. Weinstein protested this in a letter, which led to protests of a violent nature to the point that he had to hold classes off-campus. Weinstein sued over the fact that he had to hold the event off-campus rather than the University maintaining an academic setting in which he could teach. He also needed a police escort on campus. He contended that this represented a hostile work environment. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-turns-on-its-own.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-tur... http://www.cooperpointjournal.com/2017/04/10/day-of-absence-changes-form/ http://www.cooperpointjournal.com/2017/04/10/day-of-absence-...
dang 6y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26198948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26198948.

by rsj_hn 6y ago

ggm 6y ago

Not withstanding what you say, how do you counter this with related responses to your parent comment which note corporate research is legally bound and ownership vests strongly in IP law and not your research your brain.

rsj_hn 6y ago
My counter is what foolinaround also said in reply to my post. Intellectual freedom is a question of culture, not of any legal or financial apparatus. There was enormous intellectual freedom at the for-profit Bell Labs. There was enormous intellectual freedom in the publicly owned Berkeley in the 70s-80s. The culture present in the organization will determine whether you need to always be on the guard from saying the wrong thing that might destroy your career or whether you are free to challenge incumbent ideas/viewpoints/theories. Personnel is policy. The legal charter of an organization is far down the list of factors that determine how much freedom you have -- the mindset of your peers and of the leadership in the organization matters much, much more.
- ggm 6y ago
  The evidence to me, late stage career (I was in government, and uni research and then latterly in systems and networks in the uni system, latterly outside in the NFP internet public governance space), is we're off the rails both inside academia and in private industry research. Neither feel like fully open minds.

foolinaround 6y ago

considering that there are no market forces at play in the universities, it is almost guaranteed that intellectual freedom is much lesser due to the very polarizing, take no prisoners approach currently in place. Dissent is not being tolerated, when in former times, it even used to be welcome.

darkarmani 6y ago

Fired? > A settlement was reached in September 2017 in which Weinstein and Heying resigned and received $250,000 each, after having sought $3.8 million in damages. He resigned as part of a settlement when he sued them. The university paid to get rid of him.

themolecularman 6y ago
The videos show him getting mobbed by students, the University offered no protection for him. When told that students were going "car to car" looking for them, the University told police not to get involved. It's a radical story and it needs more attention.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

jboog 6y ago

So you have one example of someone being fired at...Evergreen college or whatever And some guy who was temporarily suspended and then immediately reinstated. And this proves profs with tenure have the same or worse protections than employees of private industry? Have you ever heard of "at-will employment"?

Kranar 6y ago
The Evergreen example is incorrect, Bret Weinstein was not fired from Evergreen. He sued the college and resigned as part of a settlement in which he and his wife received a combined $500,000 payout.
- jboog 6y ago
  Wow. even worse. This is one of the things that really annoys me about the anti cancel-culture warriors. I get it, there has been some excess, some poor decisions made, but the hyperbolic, bad faith, and often dishonest framing they often use makes me really suspect of basically anything they say. In MOST states in the US your boss can fire you for NO REASON at all. Or ANY reason save a few federally protected reasons like race/gender etc. That's "at-will" employment. Anyone who tells you this is the same as the protections tenured profs have is a liar or complete moron.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

bachmeier 6y ago

Your comment has nothing to do with the post you're replying to. The post asked something very specific: > How does research in an industrial lab vs. a university work, insofar as independence is concerned?

gowld 6y ago

Your description of Bret Weinstein and Evergreen is substantially inaccurate, perhaps because you read Bret Weinstein's dishonest description of it (linked below). There was no "no-white-people-on-campus" day. There was an optional off-campus field trip for a seminar aimed at people living with a white perspective. Bret Weinstein was not fired. He resigned with $500K severance as part of a settlement agreement arising from his lawsuit against the school for failing to protect him from students who verbally harassed him. Primary Source: https://app.leg.wa.gov/committeeschedules/Home/Document/170557 https://app.leg.wa.gov/committeeschedules/Home/Document/1705... Long-term summary of events: https://www.theolympian.com/news/local/education/article175061841.html https://www.theolympian.com/news/local/education/article1750... Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein#Evergreen_State_College_Day_of_Absence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein#Evergreen_State... Likewise, your description of the Gordon Klein incident was grossly inaccurate, even compared to the right-wing NYPost's version of the events: https://nypost.com/2020/06/10/ucla-suspends-professor-for-refusing-leniency-for-black-students/ https://nypost.com/2020/06/10/ucla-suspends-professor-for-re... He was suspended for unprofessionally mocking his students.

emmelaich 6y ago
quoting from your wikipedia link. ... > the event asked white participants to stay off campus That by itself is illiberal and ludicrous.
- Kranar 6y ago
  Sure, the student organized event asked that white participants who supported this misguided movement stay off campus. Sure, that's a pretty dumb thing to ask of anyone and Bret Weinstein has no obligation to adhere to it, and furthermore adhering to it is pretty dumb... But that's not the college's doing nor is it the college's responsibility.
flippinburgers 6y ago
The idea of a no fill-in-the-skin-color day is unbelievably racist.

rmk 6y ago

I realise that the corporatisation of universities and increasing monoculture/groupthink is eroding many of the protections offered to even tenured professors, but that's a different discussion. Do you have anything specific about the topic to add?

jancsika 6y ago

> Bret Weinstein was fired from Evergreen for not participating in a no-white-people-on-campus day Interpretation 1: There was a "no-white-people-on-campus day" at a university, a professor named Bret Weinstein-- a white person-- was on the campus that day (either in defiance or without foreknowledge of the event), and was consequently fired for being white while on campus. Interpretation 2: There was a "no-white-people-on-campus day" at a university where white people were singled out to attend some off-campus event (whether mandatory or optional), Bret Weinstein-- a white professor-- did not attend this off-campus event (whether in defiance or accidentally, whether going on campus, or not), and consequently the university fired Bret Weinstein for his action of not attending an event targeted exclusively at white people. Interpretation 3: You are leaving some crucial detail that explains what actually happened. If #3 isn't the case I'll eat my hat. If it is, you should consider the possibility that some kind of anti-academic axe-grinding is keeping you from writing as clearly as you could about historical events. Edit: clarification

da_big_ghey 6y ago
Interpretation 2 is closest to correct. There was a "day of absence", and in 2017, whites were "invited" to leave the campus for the day's activities. Weinstein protested this in a letter, which led to protests of a violent nature to the point that he had to hold classes off-campus. Weinstein sued over the fact that he had to hold the event off-campus rather than the University maintaining an academic setting in which he could teach. He also needed a police escort on campus. He contended that this represented a hostile work environment. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-turns-on-its-own.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-tur... http://www.cooperpointjournal.com/2017/04/10/day-of-absence-changes-form/ http://www.cooperpointjournal.com/2017/04/10/day-of-absence-...

dang 6y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26198948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26198948.