4 ms·

What you choose to teach and how you choose to teach is innately a form of activism. It's impossible to separate teaching from activism. The problem with activi

What you choose to teach and how you choose to teach is innately a form of activism. It's impossible to separate teaching from activism. The problem with activism in universities isn't with the professors, it's with the administrative staff. What yale and other institutions need to do is adopt a neutral stance and protect freedom of speech. Which used to be the standard when I went to school. A neo-nazi, a zionist, a christian, an atheist, etc should have a right to study, teach, opine, etc in an american university. People need to feel free to be a 'devil's advocate' in any academic institution. The problem is that the lunatic fringe has coalesced together and taken power not only in academia, but corporate america and government. As for limiting donor influence, I think we can all agree on that. It's crazy how a few despicable billionaires were able to take out the leaders of harvard, penn, etc.

gnicholas 3y ago
How do you suggest limiting donor influence, as a practical matter? How can they be forced to donate to organizations whose actions they oppose?
- simpletone 3y ago
  > How do you suggest limiting donor influence, as a practical matter? Harvard, Penn, etc is far more important than bill ackman, trump, etc. > How can they be forced to donate to organizations whose actions they oppose. They don't have to donate. And their children don't get special privileges to these institutions. Besides, as I said, the organizations should take a neutral stance.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    I agree with your toplevel comment in general, but I'm not sure I understand how they should avoid the outsized influence of a few donors. Is the idea that institutions should adopt policies that ensure that no one donor (or a small group of donors) consists of too much of the donations pool? Or should they actively be rejecting donations based on some sort of subjective evaluation of the donor? The former seems reasonable, but the latter sounds like the opposite of an org taking a neutral stance. I do think there are some cases where orgs should be actively disqualifying specific donors; the Epstein junk seems to be a good example of why they should be picky.
sandworm101 3y ago
>> adopt a neutral stance and protect freedom of speech. Neutral stances sound all well and good, but in reality they are fraught with difficulties. What is the neutral stance on anthropomorphic climate change? What is the neutral stance on the age of the earth? Or its shape? Adopting pure neutrality means giving voice to the fringes. While students can certainly benefit in principal from hearing such voices, I would have walked out of Geology 101 had we been tested on "alternative" religious-based models of geology. I went to university to learn about reality. I can get enough of the non-reality from the internet.
- kelnos 3y ago
  You're not actually arguing against what the GP said. The argument being made is that administrative staff should stay out of these sorts of debates. They should have no position on climate change. That's the faculty's job, especially faculty whose expertise is in climate science. If faculty is teaching religious-based versions of these sorts of topics, then students are free to either a) enroll elsewhere, or b) engage in activism with the goal of having these faculty members removed from teaching positions. The administrative staff should be responding to the wants and needs of students (and faculty, to some extent), not pushing their own views on them. Of course, there's usually some overlap. Some (many?) university departments will have dean positions that rotate among teaching faculty. But pure administrative positions should maybe sit back and listen rather than pushing their own agenda.
adw 3y ago
[flagged]
- throwawa14223 3y ago
  Or just reject The Open Society and Its Enemies. An open society as presented by Popper is not something we should be striving for.
- kelnos 3y ago
  Can you elaborate on why you believe this is the case? Your comment as-is lacks substance, and it would be helpful to describe what of Popper's ideas you agree with, and how and why they apply to GP's comment.
- mamonster 3y ago
  Nobody actually bothers with Popper today, especially liberals themselves. "Historicism is bad" -> "Trump/Bolsonaro/insert random right wind populist have rhetoric similar to early Hitler, we must stop them to prevent Nazis/fascists rising up again" "History is not our judge and historical success does not prove anytihing" -> "Here is my Whig historiography identifying me, the open society enjoyer, as the descendant of Union soldiers/ US soldiers landing in Normandy / etc."
  - TMWNN 3y ago
    >"Here is my Whig historiography identifying me, the open society enjoyer, as the descendant of Union soldiers/ US soldiers landing in Normandy / etc." Yes, I've noticed lately a rise in this bizarre form of Union Army cosplaying (such as threats to repeat Sherman's match on the South) by certain terminally online leftists. The implication, of course, is that ideological opponents are naturally the Confederates, and thus racists (and also Nazis/fascists/etc. The bogus history is beside the point.)
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      >is that ideological opponents are naturally the Confederates, and thus racists They are literally, purposely, as it's "their history", flying a damn (historically inaccurate no less!) battle flag of the confederacy! A rebellion that took less time than Game of Thrones the television show! Seeing as the confederacy was openly about protecting slavery as the SINGULAR issue separating them from the Union, choosing the fly a flag that represents a short rebellion (and open treason) against the US is definitively choosing to represent yourself as a confederate. Seeing as the confederacy was openly about slavery, and southern US slavery was openly about a broad belief that black people were lesser than white people, and savages that god gave them dominion over, you know, racism, it should not be controversial to call someone flying a confederate flag a racist. That flag represents nothing else. People who are giddy about doing another Sherman's march sure are weird though. Sherman himself didn't even like it. Arguably it wasn't some all out massacre save for one city that "supposedly" the boys got too roudy with, but he wasn't exactly proud salting the earth so aggressively that you can still see it flying over the area to this day. There are plenty that consider themselves "liberal" or "progressive" even, that happily adopt violence as a means to their chosen end. There's always someone willing to bend their interpretation of reality to a form that "requires" they violently act to be the hero. I wouldn't exactly call the left the originator of this violent rhetoric however. "Democrats should be shot" isn't exactly a rare thing to hear from conservatives in the US, and not in jest, and it is not new.
collingreen 3y ago
I agree with some of the sentiment here but not the detail/presentation -- in particular I find it very frustrating to see an argument that we should embrace nazis as teachers built on the implication that that's the only way to have a "devil's advocate" perspective. I have met many many many people who can think critically and effectively consider/debate multiple angles of something without embracing nationalism or racist hatred as an identity. Yes let's ensure we have the best opportunity to learn from, debate, and critique each other. No let's not excuse or embrace outrageously hostile behavior.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  Or simply the fact that in the normal course of my life I have encountered plenty of racists, neonazis, colonialists, IQ fetishists, wannabe eugenicists etc etc. I considered these ideas already. They all suck and there is no value in further consideration of them, either for me or for our society. These ideas need nothing more from us but to be pushed out of the main stream of intellectual discourse and the people who support and endorse them are offering nothing useful to us by doing it.
norir 3y ago
Neutral is an ideal, not a practical reality.
slater 3y ago
> A neo-nazi, a zionist, a christian, an atheist, etc should have a right to study, teach, opine, etc in an american university. Of course. But they're not free from the consequences of e.g. espousing neo-nazi nonsense. > The problem is that the lunatic fringe has coalesced together and taken power not only in academia, but corporate america and government But enough about Conservatives. /s

gnicholas 3y ago

How do you suggest limiting donor influence, as a practical matter? How can they be forced to donate to organizations whose actions they oppose?

simpletone 3y ago
> How do you suggest limiting donor influence, as a practical matter? Harvard, Penn, etc is far more important than bill ackman, trump, etc. > How can they be forced to donate to organizations whose actions they oppose. They don't have to donate. And their children don't get special privileges to these institutions. Besides, as I said, the organizations should take a neutral stance.
- kelnos 3y ago
  I agree with your toplevel comment in general, but I'm not sure I understand how they should avoid the outsized influence of a few donors. Is the idea that institutions should adopt policies that ensure that no one donor (or a small group of donors) consists of too much of the donations pool? Or should they actively be rejecting donations based on some sort of subjective evaluation of the donor? The former seems reasonable, but the latter sounds like the opposite of an org taking a neutral stance. I do think there are some cases where orgs should be actively disqualifying specific donors; the Epstein junk seems to be a good example of why they should be picky.

sandworm101 3y ago

>> adopt a neutral stance and protect freedom of speech. Neutral stances sound all well and good, but in reality they are fraught with difficulties. What is the neutral stance on anthropomorphic climate change? What is the neutral stance on the age of the earth? Or its shape? Adopting pure neutrality means giving voice to the fringes. While students can certainly benefit in principal from hearing such voices, I would have walked out of Geology 101 had we been tested on "alternative" religious-based models of geology. I went to university to learn about reality. I can get enough of the non-reality from the internet.

kelnos 3y ago
You're not actually arguing against what the GP said. The argument being made is that administrative staff should stay out of these sorts of debates. They should have no position on climate change. That's the faculty's job, especially faculty whose expertise is in climate science. If faculty is teaching religious-based versions of these sorts of topics, then students are free to either a) enroll elsewhere, or b) engage in activism with the goal of having these faculty members removed from teaching positions. The administrative staff should be responding to the wants and needs of students (and faculty, to some extent), not pushing their own views on them. Of course, there's usually some overlap. Some (many?) university departments will have dean positions that rotate among teaching faculty. But pure administrative positions should maybe sit back and listen rather than pushing their own agenda.

adw 3y ago

[flagged]

throwawa14223 3y ago
Or just reject The Open Society and Its Enemies. An open society as presented by Popper is not something we should be striving for.
kelnos 3y ago
Can you elaborate on why you believe this is the case? Your comment as-is lacks substance, and it would be helpful to describe what of Popper's ideas you agree with, and how and why they apply to GP's comment.
mamonster 3y ago
Nobody actually bothers with Popper today, especially liberals themselves. "Historicism is bad" -> "Trump/Bolsonaro/insert random right wind populist have rhetoric similar to early Hitler, we must stop them to prevent Nazis/fascists rising up again" "History is not our judge and historical success does not prove anytihing" -> "Here is my Whig historiography identifying me, the open society enjoyer, as the descendant of Union soldiers/ US soldiers landing in Normandy / etc."
- TMWNN 3y ago
  >"Here is my Whig historiography identifying me, the open society enjoyer, as the descendant of Union soldiers/ US soldiers landing in Normandy / etc." Yes, I've noticed lately a rise in this bizarre form of Union Army cosplaying (such as threats to repeat Sherman's match on the South) by certain terminally online leftists. The implication, of course, is that ideological opponents are naturally the Confederates, and thus racists (and also Nazis/fascists/etc. The bogus history is beside the point.)
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    >is that ideological opponents are naturally the Confederates, and thus racists They are literally, purposely, as it's "their history", flying a damn (historically inaccurate no less!) battle flag of the confederacy! A rebellion that took less time than Game of Thrones the television show! Seeing as the confederacy was openly about protecting slavery as the SINGULAR issue separating them from the Union, choosing the fly a flag that represents a short rebellion (and open treason) against the US is definitively choosing to represent yourself as a confederate. Seeing as the confederacy was openly about slavery, and southern US slavery was openly about a broad belief that black people were lesser than white people, and savages that god gave them dominion over, you know, racism, it should not be controversial to call someone flying a confederate flag a racist. That flag represents nothing else. People who are giddy about doing another Sherman's march sure are weird though. Sherman himself didn't even like it. Arguably it wasn't some all out massacre save for one city that "supposedly" the boys got too roudy with, but he wasn't exactly proud salting the earth so aggressively that you can still see it flying over the area to this day. There are plenty that consider themselves "liberal" or "progressive" even, that happily adopt violence as a means to their chosen end. There's always someone willing to bend their interpretation of reality to a form that "requires" they violently act to be the hero. I wouldn't exactly call the left the originator of this violent rhetoric however. "Democrats should be shot" isn't exactly a rare thing to hear from conservatives in the US, and not in jest, and it is not new.

collingreen 3y ago

I agree with some of the sentiment here but not the detail/presentation -- in particular I find it very frustrating to see an argument that we should embrace nazis as teachers built on the implication that that's the only way to have a "devil's advocate" perspective. I have met many many many people who can think critically and effectively consider/debate multiple angles of something without embracing nationalism or racist hatred as an identity. Yes let's ensure we have the best opportunity to learn from, debate, and critique each other. No let's not excuse or embrace outrageously hostile behavior.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
Or simply the fact that in the normal course of my life I have encountered plenty of racists, neonazis, colonialists, IQ fetishists, wannabe eugenicists etc etc. I considered these ideas already. They all suck and there is no value in further consideration of them, either for me or for our society. These ideas need nothing more from us but to be pushed out of the main stream of intellectual discourse and the people who support and endorse them are offering nothing useful to us by doing it.

norir 3y ago

Neutral is an ideal, not a practical reality.

slater 3y ago

> A neo-nazi, a zionist, a christian, an atheist, etc should have a right to study, teach, opine, etc in an american university. Of course. But they're not free from the consequences of e.g. espousing neo-nazi nonsense. > The problem is that the lunatic fringe has coalesced together and taken power not only in academia, but corporate america and government But enough about Conservatives. /s