3 ms·

The author is Andrew Gelman, whose posts are popular on HN. He agrees with Steven Pinker, whose posts are also popular on HN, that universities do NOT have a ma

by cs702 3y ago

The author is Andrew Gelman, whose posts are popular on HN. He agrees with Steven Pinker, whose posts are also popular on HN, that universities do NOT have a mandate to tell society what emotions to feel in response to events, nor what the correct moral position should be in response to them. In the OP, Gelman announces he has changed his mind and now agrees with Pinker that university administrators should "shut up and do their job" (Pinker's words), providing the most impartial forum possible for professors and students to argue these issues, i.e., adopt the "Kalven Principles" (https://president.uchicago.edu/from-the-president/announcements/2006-2021/100520-kalven-report https://president.uchicago.edu/from-the-president/announceme...). --- EDIT: Added quotes around "shut up and do their job" to make it clear that those are Pinker's words, not mine.

lapcat 3y ago
> Gelman announces he has changed his mind and now agrees with Pinker that university administrators should shut up and do their job No, that's not what he said. This is what he said: "The problem is not with academic leaders “having a foreign policy” in the sense of expressing opinions and seeking to achieve political change; it’s with expectations or demands such as Emanuel’s that academic leaders should have a foreign policy, that it’s part of the job, that it’s a matter of leadership." In other words, condemning atrocities is fine, but it's optional, not a required part of the job. --- EDIT: The title of the article is clearly tongue-in-cheek. If you don't realize that, and you take the title 100% literally, you've missed something crucial. It should be clear when the author begins by talking about "wearing earth tones, driving Priuses", which he still thinks is an absurd stereotype by Pinker. Also: "So here’s where I agree with Pinker. Or, to be more precise [emphasis mine], where I agree with his implicit point [emphasis mine]." Further quotes to show what the author is really talking about, which is the demand that university leaders make statements: "The trouble is, there are so many issues out there? How much “leading” does he demand that university leaders do?" "But then there’s the question of where to stop, which atrocities to condemn. You wouldn’t want a university president to become the equivalent of an outrage-of-the-week blogger." "Again, my problem is not with university leaders, or business leaders, or church leaders, etc., expressing views, but rather with the idea that this is what they are supposed [emphasis mine] to do." The coup de grâce: the author says in the P.P.S. that he was still right on this one, this one being a link to an article titled, "Steven Pinker is a psychologist who writes on politics."
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- cs702 3y ago
  After reading the entire essay (including the external links with which Gelman says he now agrees), I understood the point to be that it's OK for administrators to express opinions in a personal capacity, but it's not and should not be part of their job. See Steven Pinker's twitter post (linked to by Gelman) and Michael Baily's essay (linked to by Pinker): https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1716098101830676854 https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1716098101830676854 https://hxstem.substack.com/p/kalvenizing-northwestern-university https://hxstem.substack.com/p/kalvenizing-northwestern-unive... I added quotes around "shut up and do their job" in the root comment to make it clear that those are Pinker's words, not mine.
  - cool_dude85 3y ago
    This seems like a strange reading of Gelman's post given the very clear quote you are responding to.
- Zandikar 3y ago
  I rearranged the clauses for clarity here: "The problem is ... with expectations that it’s part of the job ... that academic leaders should have a 'foreign policy'" > administrators should shut up and do their job I read that with an implied "while performing duties of said job", not "at all times no matter what". In other words "Do not implement or promote said foreign policy on the job" as that (in their opinion) is not part of their job, but a personal matter to be tended to on personal time. Stripped of context I can see why someone would take issue with that quote as the implication is dependent on that context, but in context he's clearly talking about performing their duties on the job. Afterall, the implication you're operating off of is that this person is expected to be on the job 24/7 and/or as such should never ever do anything ever that's not relevant to the job or in line with company policies, which is frankly absurd. It's why context is important and while a single line/quote can anchor an entire discussion or position, it rarely can fully embody or express it. TL;DR: Needs context.

by cs702 3y ago

lapcat 3y ago

> Gelman announces he has changed his mind and now agrees with Pinker that university administrators should shut up and do their job No, that's not what he said. This is what he said: "The problem is not with academic leaders “having a foreign policy” in the sense of expressing opinions and seeking to achieve political change; it’s with expectations or demands such as Emanuel’s that academic leaders should have a foreign policy, that it’s part of the job, that it’s a matter of leadership." In other words, condemning atrocities is fine, but it's optional, not a required part of the job. --- EDIT: The title of the article is clearly tongue-in-cheek. If you don't realize that, and you take the title 100% literally, you've missed something crucial. It should be clear when the author begins by talking about "wearing earth tones, driving Priuses", which he still thinks is an absurd stereotype by Pinker. Also: "So here’s where I agree with Pinker. Or, to be more precise [emphasis mine], where I agree with his implicit point [emphasis mine]." Further quotes to show what the author is really talking about, which is the demand that university leaders make statements: "The trouble is, there are so many issues out there? How much “leading” does he demand that university leaders do?" "But then there’s the question of where to stop, which atrocities to condemn. You wouldn’t want a university president to become the equivalent of an outrage-of-the-week blogger." "Again, my problem is not with university leaders, or business leaders, or church leaders, etc., expressing views, but rather with the idea that this is what they are supposed [emphasis mine] to do." The coup de grâce: the author says in the P.P.S. that he was still right on this one, this one being a link to an article titled, "Steven Pinker is a psychologist who writes on politics."

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cs702 3y ago
After reading the entire essay (including the external links with which Gelman says he now agrees), I understood the point to be that it's OK for administrators to express opinions in a personal capacity, but it's not and should not be part of their job. See Steven Pinker's twitter post (linked to by Gelman) and Michael Baily's essay (linked to by Pinker): https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1716098101830676854 https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1716098101830676854 https://hxstem.substack.com/p/kalvenizing-northwestern-university https://hxstem.substack.com/p/kalvenizing-northwestern-unive... I added quotes around "shut up and do their job" in the root comment to make it clear that those are Pinker's words, not mine.
- cool_dude85 3y ago
  This seems like a strange reading of Gelman's post given the very clear quote you are responding to.
Zandikar 3y ago
I rearranged the clauses for clarity here: "The problem is ... with expectations that it’s part of the job ... that academic leaders should have a 'foreign policy'" > administrators should shut up and do their job I read that with an implied "while performing duties of said job", not "at all times no matter what". In other words "Do not implement or promote said foreign policy on the job" as that (in their opinion) is not part of their job, but a personal matter to be tended to on personal time. Stripped of context I can see why someone would take issue with that quote as the implication is dependent on that context, but in context he's clearly talking about performing their duties on the job. Afterall, the implication you're operating off of is that this person is expected to be on the job 24/7 and/or as such should never ever do anything ever that's not relevant to the job or in line with company policies, which is frankly absurd. It's why context is important and while a single line/quote can anchor an entire discussion or position, it rarely can fully embody or express it. TL;DR: Needs context.