3 ms·

For people outside the US, what's the context?

congulio 4y ago
Here is some context: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/us/dorian-abbot-mit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/us/dorian-abbot-mit.html
- malshe 4y ago
  I attended his talk which was hosted by Princeton later. It was a very informative and totally stayed on point. MIT’s loss I guess.
scaramanga 4y ago
[flagged]
- nxm 4y ago
  Or, in many other countless examples, people got canned for saying something that goes against the mainstream media. The usual pro-censorship “safe space” crowd doesn’t want to anyone else to say anything the censors disagree with.
- int_19h 4y ago
  Of the people who authored or voted for this statement, whom would you consider abject racists or Nazis (or something else that, in your opinion, justifies them getting canceled)?
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  Ah yes, Nazis like the Chrstiakises[1]. Or maybe Nazis like Klaus Fiedler[2]? [1] Professor Nicholas Christakis lives at Yale, where he presides over one of its undergraduate colleges. His wife Erika, a lecturer in early childhood education, shares that duty. They reside among students and are responsible for shaping residential life. And before Halloween, some students complained to them that Yale administrators were offering heavy-handed advice on what Halloween costumes to avoid. Erika Christakis reflected on the frustrations of the students, drew on her scholarship and career experience, and composed an email inviting the community to think about the controversy through an intellectual lens that few if any had considered. Her message was a model of relevant, thoughtful, civil engagement. For her trouble, a faction of students are now trying to get the couple removed from their residential positions, which is to say, censured and ousted from their home on campus. Hundreds of Yale students are attacking them, some with hateful insults, shouted epithets, and a campaign of public shaming. In doing so, they have shown an illiberal streak that flows from flaws in their well-intentioned ideology. 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... [2] The editor in chief of one of the world's most prestigious psychology journals, Perspectives on Psychological Science, resigned on Tuesday after the board of directors of the journal's publisher demanded he step aside—or be fired—for soliciting academic criticism of a black psychologist. The editor, the prominent German psychologist Klaus Fiedler, stirred up controversy by agreeing to publish trenchant critiques of a 2020 article by Steven Roberts, a black psychologist at Stanford University, who had argued, among other things, that "color-blind leadership" promotes "structural inequality." https://freebeacon.com/campus/prestigious-psychology-journal-demands-editor-resign-for-soliciting-criticism-of-black-psychologist/ https://freebeacon.com/campus/prestigious-psychology-journal...
  - skissane 4y ago
    > For her trouble, a faction of students are now trying to get the couple removed from their residential positions The “Halloween costume” controversy happened in 2015, and the Christakises resigned from their undergraduate college role in 2016. You are talking about events which happened 6-7 years ago as if they are current.
version_five 4y ago
Academic freedom is basically a fundamental tenet of the university system. But the usual crowd thinks their agenda trumps fundamental principles of free society and only wants certain views to get any airtime, which places limits on academic enquiry. It's the modern equivalent of disallowing any research that conflicts with the bible, for example. People like the sister commentor (now flagged/dead) that think anyone with a view different than their own is a Nazi want to insert themselves into what should be free inquiry, and have devised all sorts of mental gymnastics to explain why constraining thought is actually a good thing. University administrators who only care about preserving their power and want to take the most risk adverse path get onboard, and faculty get held hostage by an entitled minority that thinks their agenda is more important than anything else. (When the agenda is really just power anyway, not the causes they use as wedge issues) And so the faculty has symbolically signed a statement that shouldn't need to exist, saying their business is their business and they should be left unmolested to free enquiry. And a few culture warriors call it culture war bullshit to try and give it the usual smug dismissal treatment that's the only form of rhetoric they know because they don't actually have a point
- thewanderer1983 4y ago
  >It's the modern equivalent of disallowing any research that conflicts with the bible, for example. It's ideology being put above all else. It can be religious or non-religious. You don't need to look much further than Stalin's Russia. Lysenkoism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism?wprov=sfla1 ) was the nonsense hoops that academics had to jump in order to align with the Ideology of the Russian state. Those who aligned their work efforts to the ideology were rewarded, promoted and those who didn't ended up much worse. We don't have this extreme level here in Western countries, but we are starting to see the seeds of it. It's nice to see MIT standing up against this. Stanford seems to be all for ideology.

Here is some context: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/us/dorian-abbot-mit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/us/dorian-abbot-mit.html

malshe 4y ago
I attended his talk which was hosted by Princeton later. It was a very informative and totally stayed on point. MIT’s loss I guess.

scaramanga 4y ago

[flagged]

nxm 4y ago
Or, in many other countless examples, people got canned for saying something that goes against the mainstream media. The usual pro-censorship “safe space” crowd doesn’t want to anyone else to say anything the censors disagree with.
int_19h 4y ago
Of the people who authored or voted for this statement, whom would you consider abject racists or Nazis (or something else that, in your opinion, justifies them getting canceled)?
barry-cotter 4y ago
Ah yes, Nazis like the Chrstiakises[1]. Or maybe Nazis like Klaus Fiedler[2]? [1] Professor Nicholas Christakis lives at Yale, where he presides over one of its undergraduate colleges. His wife Erika, a lecturer in early childhood education, shares that duty. They reside among students and are responsible for shaping residential life. And before Halloween, some students complained to them that Yale administrators were offering heavy-handed advice on what Halloween costumes to avoid. Erika Christakis reflected on the frustrations of the students, drew on her scholarship and career experience, and composed an email inviting the community to think about the controversy through an intellectual lens that few if any had considered. Her message was a model of relevant, thoughtful, civil engagement. For her trouble, a faction of students are now trying to get the couple removed from their residential positions, which is to say, censured and ousted from their home on campus. Hundreds of Yale students are attacking them, some with hateful insults, shouted epithets, and a campaign of public shaming. In doing so, they have shown an illiberal streak that flows from flaws in their well-intentioned ideology. 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... [2] The editor in chief of one of the world's most prestigious psychology journals, Perspectives on Psychological Science, resigned on Tuesday after the board of directors of the journal's publisher demanded he step aside—or be fired—for soliciting academic criticism of a black psychologist. The editor, the prominent German psychologist Klaus Fiedler, stirred up controversy by agreeing to publish trenchant critiques of a 2020 article by Steven Roberts, a black psychologist at Stanford University, who had argued, among other things, that "color-blind leadership" promotes "structural inequality." https://freebeacon.com/campus/prestigious-psychology-journal-demands-editor-resign-for-soliciting-criticism-of-black-psychologist/ https://freebeacon.com/campus/prestigious-psychology-journal...
- skissane 4y ago
  > For her trouble, a faction of students are now trying to get the couple removed from their residential positions The “Halloween costume” controversy happened in 2015, and the Christakises resigned from their undergraduate college role in 2016. You are talking about events which happened 6-7 years ago as if they are current.

version_five 4y ago

Academic freedom is basically a fundamental tenet of the university system. But the usual crowd thinks their agenda trumps fundamental principles of free society and only wants certain views to get any airtime, which places limits on academic enquiry. It's the modern equivalent of disallowing any research that conflicts with the bible, for example. People like the sister commentor (now flagged/dead) that think anyone with a view different than their own is a Nazi want to insert themselves into what should be free inquiry, and have devised all sorts of mental gymnastics to explain why constraining thought is actually a good thing. University administrators who only care about preserving their power and want to take the most risk adverse path get onboard, and faculty get held hostage by an entitled minority that thinks their agenda is more important than anything else. (When the agenda is really just power anyway, not the causes they use as wedge issues) And so the faculty has symbolically signed a statement that shouldn't need to exist, saying their business is their business and they should be left unmolested to free enquiry. And a few culture warriors call it culture war bullshit to try and give it the usual smug dismissal treatment that's the only form of rhetoric they know because they don't actually have a point

thewanderer1983 4y ago
>It's the modern equivalent of disallowing any research that conflicts with the bible, for example. It's ideology being put above all else. It can be religious or non-religious. You don't need to look much further than Stalin's Russia. Lysenkoism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism?wprov=sfla1 ) was the nonsense hoops that academics had to jump in order to align with the Ideology of the Russian state. Those who aligned their work efforts to the ideology were rewarded, promoted and those who didn't ended up much worse. We don't have this extreme level here in Western countries, but we are starting to see the seeds of it. It's nice to see MIT standing up against this. Stanford seems to be all for ideology.