3 ms·

I think the main strength of this activist movement in academia is that it operates through fear. In an environment where much depends on word of mouth and pers

I think the main strength of this activist movement in academia is that it operates through fear. In an environment where much depends on word of mouth and personal reputation, people could lose their entire careers for violating new, rapidly transforming cultural mores. So, they self-censor, and some voice support for the activists to avoid becoming a target themselves. (Cue the 60-year-old professors who have never used Twitter putting pronouns in their email signatures and adding '#BLM' messages on their personal websites.[1]) The overall effect is that a minority can extract the obedience of a majority. Public statements like this will have little effect unless they are actively enforced. This means that violators must be officially sanctioned by administrators, who are often their peers. It's clear to me that most academics (including myself, I'm ashamed to admit) are cowards who will bend their public positions, even on academic matters, in favor of whoever wields the greatest power. Not until activists are met with stern opposition and loss of prestige will people stop currying favor with them. If, though, I am wrong in my assessment and most academics and students, rather than a dominant minority, wholly believe that offensive utterances must be punished and unsavory research banned, I think there isn't much left to do. Any official action, let alone the posted public statement, will only galvanize people to seek out more aggressive policies and oust those that oppose them. There are real stakes in this conflict, and right now, activists in academia (hard sciences) are pushing in my view really significant policy proposals. From MIT geophysical sciences department: 1. Penalize (during peer review) research that doesn't cite black authors. 2. Implement diversity boards that have final say in hiring and tenure decisions. (They need not have field expertise.) From several Broad Institute faculty and post-docs: 1. Restrict publication of genetic research in white populations until genetic sampling of other populations around the world reach parity. 2. Ban white researchers from conducting genetic research in populations in non-white countries. 3. Ban genetic research that can be stigmatizing to designated vulnerable populations (e.g. genetic component of educational attainment, the genetic architecture of autism, etc.). [1] For clarity, these two relate to first-hand examples of professors making statements solely out of fear of not being able to attract students their labs/departments.

8note 4y ago
These don't seem like particularly new restrictions, vs past ones around communists. The proper left wing still doesn't exist in american academia or society ... Citing black authors would be much easier if historically black academics were allowed to become academics, write papers, etc. These are forcing functions against prior suck.
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  >... Citing black authors would be much easier if historically black academics were allowed to become academics, write papers, etc. These are forcing functions against prior suck. Historically blacks weren't allowed to play sports either. When the color barrier fell, they flooded into sports like basketball and baseball. No affirmative action was needed to achieve representation. When the US supreme court upheld affirmative action decades ago, they stated it was a temporary measure which would probably be rendered unnecessary as time passed. That hasn't happened -- in fact, just the opposite. Affirmative action students tend to major in "culture studies" type disciplines, then get diversity/equity/inclusion type jobs. At those jobs they are basically paid to advocate for further affirmative action in one form or another. It's not a forcing function against "prior suck" -- the past can't be changed. It's a forcing function to further grow the ideological snowball.
ShredKazoo 4y ago
>This means that violators must be officially sanctioned by administrators, who are often their peers. There is a bit of a paradox here, because you could argue that cancelling a professor for having an unfashionable opinion is itself an exercise of student free speech. The statement says "MIT does not protect direct threats, harassment, plagiarism, or other speech that falls outside the boundaries of the First Amendment." It seems to me that certain forms of cancellation could be argued to constitute "harassment" and therefore violate the policy. Those are indeed some extreme policy proposals. Perhaps you could argue against them anonymously on the MIT subreddit or something like that? (Posting through Tor/VPN on a burner account) >If, though, I am wrong in my assessment and most academics and students, rather than a dominant minority, wholly believe that offensive utterances must be punished and unsavory research banned, I think there isn't much left to do. Any official action, let alone the posted public statement, will only galvanize people to seek out more aggressive policies and oust those that oppose them. This suggests an alternative measure: Instead of focusing on freedom of expression, focus on providing a means by which students/faculty/etc. can be polled on these proposals in a way that is robustly anonymous. Sounds like you believe that if the poll favors the extreme measures, there's nothing to be done anyways. >[1] For clarity, these two relate to first-hand examples of professors making statements solely out of fear of not being able to attract students their labs/departments. I'm surprised that professors at MIT of all places need to grovel this way to attract students?

8note 4y ago

These don't seem like particularly new restrictions, vs past ones around communists. The proper left wing still doesn't exist in american academia or society ... Citing black authors would be much easier if historically black academics were allowed to become academics, write papers, etc. These are forcing functions against prior suck.

ShredKazoo 4y ago
>... Citing black authors would be much easier if historically black academics were allowed to become academics, write papers, etc. These are forcing functions against prior suck. Historically blacks weren't allowed to play sports either. When the color barrier fell, they flooded into sports like basketball and baseball. No affirmative action was needed to achieve representation. When the US supreme court upheld affirmative action decades ago, they stated it was a temporary measure which would probably be rendered unnecessary as time passed. That hasn't happened -- in fact, just the opposite. Affirmative action students tend to major in "culture studies" type disciplines, then get diversity/equity/inclusion type jobs. At those jobs they are basically paid to advocate for further affirmative action in one form or another. It's not a forcing function against "prior suck" -- the past can't be changed. It's a forcing function to further grow the ideological snowball.

ShredKazoo 4y ago

>This means that violators must be officially sanctioned by administrators, who are often their peers. There is a bit of a paradox here, because you could argue that cancelling a professor for having an unfashionable opinion is itself an exercise of student free speech. The statement says "MIT does not protect direct threats, harassment, plagiarism, or other speech that falls outside the boundaries of the First Amendment." It seems to me that certain forms of cancellation could be argued to constitute "harassment" and therefore violate the policy. Those are indeed some extreme policy proposals. Perhaps you could argue against them anonymously on the MIT subreddit or something like that? (Posting through Tor/VPN on a burner account) >If, though, I am wrong in my assessment and most academics and students, rather than a dominant minority, wholly believe that offensive utterances must be punished and unsavory research banned, I think there isn't much left to do. Any official action, let alone the posted public statement, will only galvanize people to seek out more aggressive policies and oust those that oppose them. This suggests an alternative measure: Instead of focusing on freedom of expression, focus on providing a means by which students/faculty/etc. can be polled on these proposals in a way that is robustly anonymous. Sounds like you believe that if the poll favors the extreme measures, there's nothing to be done anyways. >[1] For clarity, these two relate to first-hand examples of professors making statements solely out of fear of not being able to attract students their labs/departments. I'm surprised that professors at MIT of all places need to grovel this way to attract students?