5 ms·

The argument is in the premise, a powerful tool used by people sophisticated in public messaging: The premise here is that the status quo beliefs are knowledge

The argument is in the premise, a powerful tool used by people sophisticated in public messaging: The premise here is that the status quo beliefs are knowledge, ideas that disagree are 'activism' - political activity - and are not knowledge. It's fundementally a higly conservative framing that, obviously and intentionally, protects the status quo power. Once you accept the premise, everything else follows - assuming X is political activity, and school is for learning, not so much for political actitivty, then obviously .... The effective means is not to make an argument directly for the premise - that makes the premise an issue on the table, something to debate. Instead, assume it in your argument: Stop this politicized liberal activism! See how that works? Even people who disagree have to figure out what they disagree about and construct an argument. In reality, neither idea is more political than the other, and the university, of all places, is where to explore and develop new ideas. Teaching the status quo idea is just as much indoctrination as any other idea - maybe more, because it doesn't raise the question of challenging itself. The real question is, how are they taught. And regardless, I trust the students at Yale are smart enough not to be so easily manipulated - just like the people on HN, of course, who know so well what's good for the students.

kardianos 3y ago
So long as you recognize that there exists a material reality, the correspondence to which we call truth, there can be objectivity and a separation of activism from teaching. If there can be no reasonable way to get closer to an objective truth, the very foundations of universities are in question and the entire institution destroyed. In fact, that is exactly what Queer Theory promotes, in which papers describe that when Queer Theory becomes normal, it must deconstruct itself further. No. I reject that notion. There is objective reality, and there is a reasonably objective way to teach knowledge apart from activism. It is entirely possible to promote alternate viewpoints without activism, so long as your alternate viewpoint is not "there is no objectivity".
- wolverine876 3y ago
  There's objective reality IMHO, but humans have demonstrated that we fail to see it clearly, and that our view of reality is biased by our beliefs, drives, experiences, etc. This understanding of human nature extends back to Plato, at least. One strong bias is that we follow social norms; we follow the herd. Challenges to that norm are upsetting, disruptive. But norms are not privileged in truth; there have been endless evil and ignorant norms in history. > If there can be no reasonable way to get closer to an objective truth, the very foundations of universities are in question and the entire institution destroyed. Nobody said we can't get closer, but the way to get closer is not to accept one set of beliefs and supress the others; it's to innovate and improve. We know much more about economics than we did 50 years ago and 100 years ago and centuries ago, but we still have far to go. > that is exactly what Queer Theory promotes Could you give an example of that?
  - kardianos 3y ago
    You are joining a truth to a lie. Truth: Social normal and bias correlate. Lie: Engineering, History, Science, et al are strongly dependent on social norms.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > Lie: Engineering, History, Science, et al are strongly dependent on social norms. I believe in the ideals you are talking about - I think they are essential. If we don't look at how we fail those ideals, how our biases have resulted in untruths, obviously we won't get closer to them. We need to face the cold, difficult truths: I encourage you to read histories of those fields; it is overwhelmingly the case that bias has affected them in significant ways. As simple examples, much of engineering has historically assumed male users; not only does that affect seatbelt usage or bulletproof vest usage in the military (a real thing!), but it also excludes women from doing certain jobs - the equipment is made for men but not for women. Much of medical research has been on males for male problems - for example, heart disease research for a long time used only male subjects, though the disease affects women differently. Part of the reason is the training (school) and hiring bias toward male researchers, as many studies have demonstrated (some simply by removing author names). It's self-perpetuating: We are biased, of course, to hire people like ourselves (an early lesson in business school) and to focus on problems we have experience with. You need someone to push to disrupt that cycle, force women, in these examples, into the system. Otherwise, it just keeps running on that way forever.
- thereticent 3y ago
  This is a very naive take. The view of most postmodern forms of critique is that we can rule out clearly wrong views of the world as useless or counterproductive, but there is no one unmediated perspective that represents the truth. Moreover, there are many perspectives of the underlying reality that should be considered and treated with charity to determine what is "true" in them. That's why queer theory holds that it should be deconstructed if it becomes the dominant perspective. There doesn't need to be one! The "working theory" of reality can and should be intersubjective because it is always mediated through individual perspectives, language, etc. It's a matter of finding common ground and incorporating productive ground from other perspectives that moves us forward as a society. Seeking an objective and unified description of the underlying "foundational" reality is silly. Reality is not Truth. Instead, truth is a property of linguistic statements and other representations of (what are ultimately subjective or intersubjective) perspectives of the underlying reality. People reject that notion with funny statements like "No. I reject this" because they don't understand the argument and feel threatened by it.
- scrubs 3y ago
  Agree - your first paragraph restated better what I wrote elsewhere in this comment set. Telling a student what's going on in a subject is one thing. Intent to mould an outcome isn't. Teaching is not a by way to lobby.
sandworm101 3y ago
>> school is for learning, not so much for political activity That is the radical idea imho. I cannot think of anywhere more associated with political activity than schools. From Harvard's impact on the forming of the US as a nation, through anti-slavery writings, Brown v. Board of Education, the Kent state shootings, through modern school shootings/gun control, to today's "culture war" ... schools have always been at the heart of every US political issue.
- scrubs 3y ago
  There are two parts: primary in the examples you cited are advancing a truer, fairer goal set on how to reason about and for justice. It's about having better premises, arguments. This is primary for any teaching institution. Second, we have effecting the change in society through organization and political speech, action. That's not primary for teaching institutions even if it co-located by it.
arp242 3y ago
> The premise here is that the status quo beliefs are knowledge, ideas that disagree are 'activism' This is not the premise at all; I don't think anyone signing this letter thinks that and it's an extreme interpretation – I have no idea how that is your take-away. The letter specifically calls for a broad inclusion of viewpoints. Recently (in Netherlands, not US) there was a case where a course description told students to stay away if they can't deal with the "fact" that Israel is an apartheid state. Of course there is nothing wrong with treating all sorts of different aspects of "Israel" and "apartheid state", but once you start describing these things as "facts" that "some people can't deal with" who should "stay away" then you're not starting any discussions or challenging anything: it's activism. And not even very good or effective activism at that. This is the type of thing people object to. There's been tons of incidents over the last few years (this just happens to be fresh in my memory). I don't know what specific incidents there have been at Yale, but I'm guessing they're of roughly the same shape as this.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  It's the students (and faculty) that cricitize Israel that are kicked off campus and suppressed. The idea that we need to protect the rights of the powerful majority to live without challenge is a brazen misuse of civil rights, which are there to protect the minority from the majority.
  - arp242 3y ago
    > The idea that we need to protect the rights of the powerful majority to live without challenge is a brazen misuse of civil rights No one is argueing this. Certainly I didn't argue this, and I'm not reading it anywhere in this letter either. This conversation is turning unpleasant because for the second time now you're taking extremist interpretations of everything.
- almatabata 3y ago
  > I don't know what specific incidents there have been at Yale, but I'm guessing they're of roughly the same shape as this. There was a case where a professor at Yale was apparently pressured into resigning because of a mail she sent about halloween costumes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/11/on-the-front-lines-of-the-fight-for-free-speech-at-yale/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/1...
sdwr 3y ago
The context is that professors are increasingly vulnerable to being fired based on the political whims of students. There have been a few cases at Yale recently: - the Halloween thing - a teacher who wanted to let that right-wing hack Yiannopolos speak (free speech) - and I feel like there was one more about gender politics You can argue the actual politics or who started what, but what I'm seeing is a lack of respect. Challenging ideas is all well and good, but what puts it over the line is threatening people's careers over them.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Interestingly, there are other issues of censorship going the other way, particulary Yale giving in to right-wing donors. Would you agree that all forms are wrong? Then we have a coalition with the power to protect speech. > - a teacher who wanted to let that right-wing hack Yiannopolos speak (free speech) Must they let everyone speak? What about people with nothing valuable to say? What about people who spew hate? People who generally encourage violence and hate? (I think we can agree that direct incitement to violence should be banned.) I think it's important to lean heavily toward more speech, but there may be lines. Also, Yale is there to provide education and the best knowledge, not an equal opportunity platform for BS.
  - nec4b 3y ago
    >>Must they let everyone speak? Is somebody forcing anyone to listen? You don't have to go to every speech hosted on a faculty premises. >>What about people with nothing valuable to say? I don't think much of what you posted here is of particular value, yet I would not dream of forbidding others to not read your posts.
    - scrubs 3y ago
      Agreed. Moreover here's what I want to see and hear more about: for any position that a student feels is extremely wrong, go to the lecture and defeat the argument! Winning isn't cancelling. Winning is getting the other side to stumble, and reconsider.
  - 3y ago
scrubs 3y ago
Your assessment is not on the mark. There is a qualitative difference between, say, a history course on Israel, Palestine since WWI and using the course to push for policy changes in one's country's foreign policy. The difference is intent. Teachers disseminate facts and ways to organize facts. They should not intend to lobby or influence or to politically organize selves or students. "Teaching the status quo idea is just as much indoctrination as any other idea" The whole point of graduate degrees is make standard, known, accepted better by advancing the subject to the contrary of a fixed "fact set" grad students are encouraged to break doctrine wherever it is

kardianos 3y ago

So long as you recognize that there exists a material reality, the correspondence to which we call truth, there can be objectivity and a separation of activism from teaching. If there can be no reasonable way to get closer to an objective truth, the very foundations of universities are in question and the entire institution destroyed. In fact, that is exactly what Queer Theory promotes, in which papers describe that when Queer Theory becomes normal, it must deconstruct itself further. No. I reject that notion. There is objective reality, and there is a reasonably objective way to teach knowledge apart from activism. It is entirely possible to promote alternate viewpoints without activism, so long as your alternate viewpoint is not "there is no objectivity".

wolverine876 3y ago
There's objective reality IMHO, but humans have demonstrated that we fail to see it clearly, and that our view of reality is biased by our beliefs, drives, experiences, etc. This understanding of human nature extends back to Plato, at least. One strong bias is that we follow social norms; we follow the herd. Challenges to that norm are upsetting, disruptive. But norms are not privileged in truth; there have been endless evil and ignorant norms in history. > If there can be no reasonable way to get closer to an objective truth, the very foundations of universities are in question and the entire institution destroyed. Nobody said we can't get closer, but the way to get closer is not to accept one set of beliefs and supress the others; it's to innovate and improve. We know much more about economics than we did 50 years ago and 100 years ago and centuries ago, but we still have far to go. > that is exactly what Queer Theory promotes Could you give an example of that?
- kardianos 3y ago
  You are joining a truth to a lie. Truth: Social normal and bias correlate. Lie: Engineering, History, Science, et al are strongly dependent on social norms.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > Lie: Engineering, History, Science, et al are strongly dependent on social norms. I believe in the ideals you are talking about - I think they are essential. If we don't look at how we fail those ideals, how our biases have resulted in untruths, obviously we won't get closer to them. We need to face the cold, difficult truths: I encourage you to read histories of those fields; it is overwhelmingly the case that bias has affected them in significant ways. As simple examples, much of engineering has historically assumed male users; not only does that affect seatbelt usage or bulletproof vest usage in the military (a real thing!), but it also excludes women from doing certain jobs - the equipment is made for men but not for women. Much of medical research has been on males for male problems - for example, heart disease research for a long time used only male subjects, though the disease affects women differently. Part of the reason is the training (school) and hiring bias toward male researchers, as many studies have demonstrated (some simply by removing author names). It's self-perpetuating: We are biased, of course, to hire people like ourselves (an early lesson in business school) and to focus on problems we have experience with. You need someone to push to disrupt that cycle, force women, in these examples, into the system. Otherwise, it just keeps running on that way forever.
thereticent 3y ago
This is a very naive take. The view of most postmodern forms of critique is that we can rule out clearly wrong views of the world as useless or counterproductive, but there is no one unmediated perspective that represents the truth. Moreover, there are many perspectives of the underlying reality that should be considered and treated with charity to determine what is "true" in them. That's why queer theory holds that it should be deconstructed if it becomes the dominant perspective. There doesn't need to be one! The "working theory" of reality can and should be intersubjective because it is always mediated through individual perspectives, language, etc. It's a matter of finding common ground and incorporating productive ground from other perspectives that moves us forward as a society. Seeking an objective and unified description of the underlying "foundational" reality is silly. Reality is not Truth. Instead, truth is a property of linguistic statements and other representations of (what are ultimately subjective or intersubjective) perspectives of the underlying reality. People reject that notion with funny statements like "No. I reject this" because they don't understand the argument and feel threatened by it.
scrubs 3y ago
Agree - your first paragraph restated better what I wrote elsewhere in this comment set. Telling a student what's going on in a subject is one thing. Intent to mould an outcome isn't. Teaching is not a by way to lobby.

sandworm101 3y ago

>> school is for learning, not so much for political activity That is the radical idea imho. I cannot think of anywhere more associated with political activity than schools. From Harvard's impact on the forming of the US as a nation, through anti-slavery writings, Brown v. Board of Education, the Kent state shootings, through modern school shootings/gun control, to today's "culture war" ... schools have always been at the heart of every US political issue.

scrubs 3y ago
There are two parts: primary in the examples you cited are advancing a truer, fairer goal set on how to reason about and for justice. It's about having better premises, arguments. This is primary for any teaching institution. Second, we have effecting the change in society through organization and political speech, action. That's not primary for teaching institutions even if it co-located by it.

arp242 3y ago

> The premise here is that the status quo beliefs are knowledge, ideas that disagree are 'activism' This is not the premise at all; I don't think anyone signing this letter thinks that and it's an extreme interpretation – I have no idea how that is your take-away. The letter specifically calls for a broad inclusion of viewpoints. Recently (in Netherlands, not US) there was a case where a course description told students to stay away if they can't deal with the "fact" that Israel is an apartheid state. Of course there is nothing wrong with treating all sorts of different aspects of "Israel" and "apartheid state", but once you start describing these things as "facts" that "some people can't deal with" who should "stay away" then you're not starting any discussions or challenging anything: it's activism. And not even very good or effective activism at that. This is the type of thing people object to. There's been tons of incidents over the last few years (this just happens to be fresh in my memory). I don't know what specific incidents there have been at Yale, but I'm guessing they're of roughly the same shape as this.

wolverine876 3y ago
It's the students (and faculty) that cricitize Israel that are kicked off campus and suppressed. The idea that we need to protect the rights of the powerful majority to live without challenge is a brazen misuse of civil rights, which are there to protect the minority from the majority.
- arp242 3y ago
  > The idea that we need to protect the rights of the powerful majority to live without challenge is a brazen misuse of civil rights No one is argueing this. Certainly I didn't argue this, and I'm not reading it anywhere in this letter either. This conversation is turning unpleasant because for the second time now you're taking extremist interpretations of everything.
almatabata 3y ago
> I don't know what specific incidents there have been at Yale, but I'm guessing they're of roughly the same shape as this. There was a case where a professor at Yale was apparently pressured into resigning because of a mail she sent about halloween costumes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/11/on-the-front-lines-of-the-fight-for-free-speech-at-yale/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/1...

sdwr 3y ago

The context is that professors are increasingly vulnerable to being fired based on the political whims of students. There have been a few cases at Yale recently: - the Halloween thing - a teacher who wanted to let that right-wing hack Yiannopolos speak (free speech) - and I feel like there was one more about gender politics You can argue the actual politics or who started what, but what I'm seeing is a lack of respect. Challenging ideas is all well and good, but what puts it over the line is threatening people's careers over them.

wolverine876 3y ago
Interestingly, there are other issues of censorship going the other way, particulary Yale giving in to right-wing donors. Would you agree that all forms are wrong? Then we have a coalition with the power to protect speech. > - a teacher who wanted to let that right-wing hack Yiannopolos speak (free speech) Must they let everyone speak? What about people with nothing valuable to say? What about people who spew hate? People who generally encourage violence and hate? (I think we can agree that direct incitement to violence should be banned.) I think it's important to lean heavily toward more speech, but there may be lines. Also, Yale is there to provide education and the best knowledge, not an equal opportunity platform for BS.
- nec4b 3y ago
  >>Must they let everyone speak? Is somebody forcing anyone to listen? You don't have to go to every speech hosted on a faculty premises. >>What about people with nothing valuable to say? I don't think much of what you posted here is of particular value, yet I would not dream of forbidding others to not read your posts.
  - scrubs 3y ago
    Agreed. Moreover here's what I want to see and hear more about: for any position that a student feels is extremely wrong, go to the lecture and defeat the argument! Winning isn't cancelling. Winning is getting the other side to stumble, and reconsider.
- 3y ago

scrubs 3y ago

Your assessment is not on the mark. There is a qualitative difference between, say, a history course on Israel, Palestine since WWI and using the course to push for policy changes in one's country's foreign policy. The difference is intent. Teachers disseminate facts and ways to organize facts. They should not intend to lobby or influence or to politically organize selves or students. "Teaching the status quo idea is just as much indoctrination as any other idea" The whole point of graduate degrees is make standard, known, accepted better by advancing the subject to the contrary of a fixed "fact set" grad students are encouraged to break doctrine wherever it is