4 ms·

Have universities abandoned their commitment to free thought and ideas?

25 points by jseliger 6y ago

jasonpeacock 6y ago
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quillette/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quillette/
- mafribe 6y ago
  Why do you believe that dumping a URL, rather than substantial engagement with the article is in tune with the HN guidelines which ask that "comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive"? I work at a well-known university, and I do feel strongly that the climate in academia has changed towards the worse over the last few years. The article articulates phenomena that are worth of engagement.
  - smitty1e 6y ago
    Good ideas speak for themselves and weather criticism. Bad ideas require bullying and silencing tactics to 'succeed'. The rotten edifice of bad ideas is collapsing. See Glenn H. Reynolds "The Education Apocalypse: How It Happened and How to Survive It" => https://www.amazon.com/Education-Apocalypse-How-Happened-Survive-ebook/dp/B00VPPYEWE/ref=mp_s_a_1_3 https://www.amazon.com/Education-Apocalypse-How-Happened-Sur...
  - jasonpeacock 6y ago
    It's a poorly written, pseudo-intellectual screed whining about their treatment after being held accountable for their actions, which they don't even get to until halfway through the article. There's a lot of empty name dropping, and no real apology or understanding about what they did wrong. I was so disappointed in the article I looked up what this website was and learned that I shouldn't have even wasted my time reading it. There's much better ways to write about the issue and lead a discussion than this article. So instead of writing all that, I dropped the URL for others to decide if they wanted to wanted to bother reading it or not.
    - pochamago 6y ago
      I don't really understand what the author did wrong, which I think is why the HN guidelines promote discussion over link dropping. I would benefit from knowing what you found objectionable. Tangentially, I also don't find much value in media bias info, since it doesn't tend to actually address the substance of any given article.
    - zepto 6y ago
      I don’t see you engaging with the content. You’ve written a longer comment, but I can see only three points: 1. You dislike the style and quality of the piece. 2. You are in full agreement that the authors is in fact guilty. 3. You don’t think people should read the piece. Did I miss something?
    - andreskytt 6y ago
      See, that is the point being lamented in the original article. You claim the problem with the article is the lack of apology. This implies whoever accuses the author is right and the author is wrong. Which is true, I do not know. But the key and fundamental problem is that based on your belief of who is right, you deem the article not worth your time. This sentiment being widespread in the universities is the main thing being lamented in the original article.
ve55 6y ago
Given that when we survey people presently, large proportions (sometimes a majority) say that they're scared to express many views, opinions, and arguments, including across most of the political spectrum, it's probably the case that this is at least starting to become a pretty big issue, even if many of its affects are still invisible. I think because this political issue started off (and sometimes still centers upon) a lot of weird or silly fringe things, many smart people wrote it off years ago as "yeah, this is stupid and clearly a non-issue". And if you think this problem only spans the extent of what headlines various clickbait outlets may produce from it, you would perhaps even be right. But the true problem here expresses itself in a much more subtle and permeating manner: in the form of millions of people remaining silent when they wish they could instead speak up for themselves; and I can unfortunately personally state with confidence that most of the brightest and nicest people I know are a subset of this group, and their arguments are no longer heard as speaking up simply does not past even the most basic of cost/benefit analysis anymore. Even so, this doesn't mean it is the fault of a specific institution or person. One could, as the leader of an institution, sincerely state "We will not punish anyone for speech of this nature", but yet it may do nothing to remedy the problem, since one cannot guarantee individuals won't be negatively affected in other ways.

25 points by jseliger 6y ago

jasonpeacock 6y ago

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quillette/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quillette/

mafribe 6y ago
Why do you believe that dumping a URL, rather than substantial engagement with the article is in tune with the HN guidelines which ask that "comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive"? I work at a well-known university, and I do feel strongly that the climate in academia has changed towards the worse over the last few years. The article articulates phenomena that are worth of engagement.
- smitty1e 6y ago
  Good ideas speak for themselves and weather criticism. Bad ideas require bullying and silencing tactics to 'succeed'. The rotten edifice of bad ideas is collapsing. See Glenn H. Reynolds "The Education Apocalypse: How It Happened and How to Survive It" => https://www.amazon.com/Education-Apocalypse-How-Happened-Survive-ebook/dp/B00VPPYEWE/ref=mp_s_a_1_3 https://www.amazon.com/Education-Apocalypse-How-Happened-Sur...
- jasonpeacock 6y ago
  It's a poorly written, pseudo-intellectual screed whining about their treatment after being held accountable for their actions, which they don't even get to until halfway through the article. There's a lot of empty name dropping, and no real apology or understanding about what they did wrong. I was so disappointed in the article I looked up what this website was and learned that I shouldn't have even wasted my time reading it. There's much better ways to write about the issue and lead a discussion than this article. So instead of writing all that, I dropped the URL for others to decide if they wanted to wanted to bother reading it or not.
  - pochamago 6y ago
    I don't really understand what the author did wrong, which I think is why the HN guidelines promote discussion over link dropping. I would benefit from knowing what you found objectionable. Tangentially, I also don't find much value in media bias info, since it doesn't tend to actually address the substance of any given article.
  - zepto 6y ago
    I don’t see you engaging with the content. You’ve written a longer comment, but I can see only three points: 1. You dislike the style and quality of the piece. 2. You are in full agreement that the authors is in fact guilty. 3. You don’t think people should read the piece. Did I miss something?
  - andreskytt 6y ago
    See, that is the point being lamented in the original article. You claim the problem with the article is the lack of apology. This implies whoever accuses the author is right and the author is wrong. Which is true, I do not know. But the key and fundamental problem is that based on your belief of who is right, you deem the article not worth your time. This sentiment being widespread in the universities is the main thing being lamented in the original article.

ve55 6y ago

Given that when we survey people presently, large proportions (sometimes a majority) say that they're scared to express many views, opinions, and arguments, including across most of the political spectrum, it's probably the case that this is at least starting to become a pretty big issue, even if many of its affects are still invisible. I think because this political issue started off (and sometimes still centers upon) a lot of weird or silly fringe things, many smart people wrote it off years ago as "yeah, this is stupid and clearly a non-issue". And if you think this problem only spans the extent of what headlines various clickbait outlets may produce from it, you would perhaps even be right. But the true problem here expresses itself in a much more subtle and permeating manner: in the form of millions of people remaining silent when they wish they could instead speak up for themselves; and I can unfortunately personally state with confidence that most of the brightest and nicest people I know are a subset of this group, and their arguments are no longer heard as speaking up simply does not past even the most basic of cost/benefit analysis anymore. Even so, this doesn't mean it is the fault of a specific institution or person. One could, as the leader of an institution, sincerely state "We will not punish anyone for speech of this nature", but yet it may do nothing to remedy the problem, since one cannot guarantee individuals won't be negatively affected in other ways.