7 ms·
Open Letter by CSM Faculty
- Georgelemental 4y ago
- matkoniecz 4y agoThat is almost certainly intentional to allow backtrack without losing too much face.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dang 4y agoPlease don't do this here.
- ttpphd 4y ago
- scarmig 4y agoIt's interesting that your first instinct in counterargument is to claim that anyone making the argument in the letter must be a white man.
- Brian_K_White 4y agoIt's interesting that what they actually said was that it's usually the case, and that you provided no counter evidence.
- xfitm3 4y agoIt's extremely sad that racism against white people is acceptable to so many.
- ttpphd 4y agoIt's not racism against white people to notice and critique attitudes of oppression.
- zozbot234 4y agoThere's a difference between noticing and "noticing". By now, claims of "noticing oppression" are well past the point where they should be uniformly regarded as crude dog-whistling.
- ttpphd 4y agoThis is funny to me. "You saying that I enslaved you, barred you from education, and divided and slaughtered your family is actually a subtle dog whistle against white people"
- scarmig 4y agoMany people don't believe that the truth or falsehood of a logical argument rests on the identity of the person making the argument. If you want to convince them of something, it's best to point out flaws in the argument, not try to discredit the person making the argument by calling them names.
- ttpphd 4y ago
- zmibes 4y agoWhile this is, of course, a racist counterargument, it is also correct. Doing research without a activist agenda is now a political stance. The sooner neutrals realise this the better
- ttpphd 4y ago
- creator934 4y ago
- Georgelemental 4y agoResearch is the process by which we uncover empirical truth. If the existence of objective, empirical truth is "political", then everything is political.
- ttpphd 4y agoSure you can make up definitions but that's not a persuasive or responsive argument.
- tartarate 4y agoThis reminds me of the article "Catechism Class at British Universities" about similar policies in the UK, and that title neatly sums up how, while this conflict is being presented as about politics, it is really about religion. People in earlier eras wouldn't have all been surprised by the requirement for all teaching and research to happen within a particular moral framework, whose tenets were not drawn from rational study or considered open to debate, but simply held as self-evidently correct. They wouldn't be surprised about lecturers or students having to attend prayers or recite scripture. And all societies undergo periodic revivalism, where there is a constriction of what is considered ethically acceptable behaviour, enforced through a mixture of social ostracism and state and institutional coercion. The fact that the current revivalist movement is a secular religion instead of a spiritual one is a minor difference. Otherwise, it's little different from equivalent Victorian campaigns against immoral behaviour. It just feels unusual because we've been through such a long period of liberalisation and religious decline and perhaps fooled ourselves into thinking it was a permanent state of affairs.
- pyuser583 4y agoPart of the process of “revivalism” is allowing minority viewpoints protection and platform. In the modern Anglo-tradition, colleges and universities have played a major role in constructive dissent. Non-public universities have historically had some kind of creed, but it was interpreted liberally enough to allow energetic debate.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- geofft 4y agoThis is an excellent point from the comments, from one of the signatories: > If you as a public university had no power against racism beyond the nobility of your intentions, your mission statement wouldn't matter a damn anyway. The public university's power against racism is the inherently anti-racist power of genuine knowledge. And I think it actually refutes some of the more simplistic comments by other signatories about e.g. a desire to keep politics out of science or whether a university's goal should be truth or social justice. Such a phrasing implicitly claims that social justice (however one defines it) is a separable goal from truth. It reminds me a little of the "non-overlapping magisteria" non-solution to conflicting claims from science and religion, that either science determines truth and religion determines, I dunno, vibes, or alternatively that religion has real truth and science is limited to some subset of reality - it solves the problem by refusing to take either one or the other seriously. The claims of politics and social justice are claims within the domain of truth, just as the claims of science are. Either climate change is happening and merits a response, or it isn't. Either diversity brings conflict or it doesn't. Either the implicit association test is good science or it isn't. Either social Darwinism is good science or it isn't. The goal of the university should be to seek the truth because it helps humanity. This is why the research university publishes its research and the teaching university opens its doors to the public, after all. There are enough places (as we tech folks know!) where you can pursue the truth about many things for private gain. Those of us who are on the side of "science" and "truth" must say that when the pursuit of truth has brought us somewhere, we need to do something with that conclusion. It might take us a long while and to false places on the way (as with social Darwinism), but once we've landed on the shores we sought, we need to build something there. And those of us who adhere to the cause of "social justice" as widely understood (and I certainly count myself as one) must believe that the claims it makes about the world we live in are in fact true, and that the pursuit of truth will keep us focused on what actually benefits the people or causes we support, and we need to not cede ground to the idea that our pursuit of truth is somehow a different thing from the ordinary pursuit of truth.
- andrewflnr 4y agoPolitics and social justice contain claims in the domain of truth, but also contain claims in the domain of norms, i.e. end goals, which are inherently orthogonal to truth (or near enough). Whether a fact is true is different from whether it's good or bad, which is different again from whether you should do something about it. Confusing these leads to dangerous outcomes, I believe some of the "false places" you mentioned.
- tptacek 4y agoIt looks like only a small fraction of CSM faculty have signed on to this open letter.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- crackercrews 4y ago> However, we also believe that this outcome was likely accidental, and that it stemmed from the fact that the College of Science and Mathematics only has one representative on the committee despite being the second largest college on campus. This is a very optimistic take, and surely the signers must know this. Is this move to allow for face-saving?
- nr2x 4y agoAlso, I’m guessing they didn’t show up to the meetings, circulate earlier drafts, and got upset with outcome they don’t like. This is how this type of self governance works: you have to show up.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jrm4 4y agoSo, part of my job is to work with this sort of thing and, meh? Both sides have a few fair points? I think the thing is; there's always a lot of play in these words and people perhaps frequently get too uptight when it comes to a current definition etc. I'd say my only issue would be "anti-racist" (I'm black fwiw). I don't think that much belongs in a mission statement for roughly the same reason I don't much respect air-quotes "Atheism" -- being against a thing, or "not" a thing is just far weaker than being for something. While I actually do personally believe that racism is at least a plausible candidate for our worst problem right now, I still don't like it in a statement like this. It would be like if, instead of "spreading knowledge" there was a bit about "fighting ignorance." Mission statements aren't the place. But I think e.g. "social justice" and "diversity" are terms that are loose enough to be appropriate, even if they carry certain connotations today. It's hard to not think that, again, taking these words at face value -- that "social justice" and "diversity" aren't well within the mission of a college/university. Get these people in a room and hash it out.
- wolverine876 4y ago> Get these people in a room and hash it out. That is the key and it's not that big a deal. People with a certain political agenda, seek to depict these situations as irreconcileable warfare - because the division and conflict are what they seek. A mission statement could easily address everyone's concerns, which as usual are understandable.
- nr2x 4y agoI don’t think it’s an agenda so much as a desire to create a grand victim/hero narrative. There seems to be some attitude present that they are fighting some grand battle. In reality this is the same type of stupid academic infighting that has existed since Monks ran the place hundreds of years ago.
- nr2x 4y agoExactly, they’re trying to leverage mob outrage and not actually seeking a reasonable accommodation that allows all sides to come out with a win.
- pyuser583 4y agoThe new mission statement sounds a lot like the Nicene Creed. “We are …” Other than that, they’re pretty similar.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nr2x 4y agoWhat’s the point of having people outside the university sign the letter? Seems like another veiled attempt to litigate by mob action. This is an internal organizational discussion and should remain that way. This is just inflaming the situation with no clear strategy to sensible resolution.
- rahimnathwani 4y agoIt's a public research university. It receives federal funding and federal grants. We taxpayers fund it. Why should people outside the organization contribute funds but not opinions?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nr2x 4y agoThere’s people on there from other countries. They don’t pay taxes here.
- rahimnathwani 4y agoSure. But do you agree that US taxpayers (or US citizens, or the intersection of those two groups) are entitled to chime in?
- nr2x 4y agoTo internal matters of any organization that gets any sort of public funding? No, absolutely not.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago>We are a public urban university _dedicated_ to teaching, learning, and research _rooted_ in equity, environmental sustainability, social and racial justice, innovation, and expansive notions of excellence. Swap these words above and your mission statement is not standing on its head. This type of control over words and the nuanced replacement of priority is NewSpeak. Anyone dismissing the importance of this subtlety is either a proponent of the concept or ignorant of the far reaching consequences. Neither is acceptable.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ttpphd 4y ago
- peanutcrisis 4y agoI don't think you offered a genuine critique, you simply made an unsubstantiated (racist) accusation and claimed it as fact, then framed anyone who disagreed with your racism as being racist.
- ttpphd 4y agoI didn't do that, so you are factually wrong.
- scarmig 4y ago> It's usually white men who are used to seeing any action taken to further the interests of oppressed people as "political" and "ideological", but they do not see their own actions which implicitly require continuing said oppression as "political" or "ideological". Just for the record. You could easily make the argument that the idea of academic objectivity is itself political without the added invective about white men and reply guys.
- ttpphd 4y agoJust for the record, you omitted the critique in my comment. Seems like you also missed that I was saying. I face hostility simply for existing here with an alternate viewpoint and experiences with real, literally nameable people I have encountered. Nothing I said was an attack on white men, unless you believe that noticing white men is an attack.
- phnofive 4y agoI don't think it is a critique. > I am always wary of people who want to do world changing research and then call it "not political". > It's usually white men who are used to seeing any action taken to further the interests of oppressed people as "political" and "ideological", but they do not see their own actions which implicitly require continuing said oppression as "political" or "ideological". > Compute takes resources. Is there anything less political than massive resource use? I interpret this as: "It is usually white men seeking to do apolitical, world-changing research who are willing to ignore the consequences to the oppressed to maintain the status quo." I think that is probably true of almost any demographic, given the opportunity.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago> This is most evident in the Vision Statement which discusses diversity, equity, expansive notions of excellence, wellness, an ethic of care, plural identities, climate justice, environmental justice, and racial justice, and then states that "We hold ourselves and each other accountable to ensure these values drive all decision-making in research, pedagogical innovations, resource allocation, and the development of policies and practices." Heaven forfend that “excellence” and “wellness” and various sorts of justice should be primary drivers of various sorts of decisionmaking.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- csande17 4y agoThe mission statement doesn't say "excellence" should be a primary driver, it says "expansive notions of excellence" -- a jargon phrase with a different meaning: > Expansive excellence recognizes a shift from the traditional (and often narrow) ways that excellence has been defined and measured to explore more comprehensive and relevant ways that excellence can be defined to promote equity and achieve inclusion. Holistic admission practices strive to broaden the criteria used to assess applicants. (source: https://journals.lww.com/jopte/Fulltext/2021/09000/Editorial.1.aspx https://journals.lww.com/jopte/Fulltext/2021/09000/Editorial...)