4 ms·

Let the pendulum swing. For better or worse institutions have lost an enormous amount of credibility recently.

aprilthird2021 2y ago
Especially the Columbia Board turning off it's entire Law Review website because it published an article about the international legal frameworks them at grew out of the Nakba. Whatever side you take, it's shocking how quickly elite colleges have whiplashed back and forth and basically taken no simple, practical, strong stance that both upholds order and the freedom of academic expression they've long been known for. These diversity statements were a large part of it. By making your offensiveness and marketability to students (esp. URM students) a fundamental part of one's hirability, these statements were a part of chipping away at academic freedom that's now led to where we are today.
- EA-3167 2y ago
  I don't find it shocking, because these institutions have never cared about these individual issues, they just want to be anodyne and acceptable to their target audiences. In a time of turmoil, it's hard to be find that universally acceptable stance.
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    I don't think this is true. These institutions did used to care about academic freedom and the ideals they were built around. They have become enormous and full of money and administrators who don't want to jeopardize the gravy train they're on. And now academic freedom is just a marketing term rather than something real
TheBlight 2y ago
I don't anticipate conventional institutions regaining academic credibility nor returning to former prominence vs. new learning and academic models continuing to disrupt them.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  What possible new learning and academic model brings the number one thing everyone in the world pays absurd amounts for in an Ivy League education: status and connections?
skhunted 2y ago
In the 70s and 80s conservative decried the free speech atmosphere on campuses. Liberals took the position that free speech was more important than regulating so called anti-patriotic sentiments. Now conservatives clamor for free speech and liberals seek to regulate so called hateful speech. These things have always swung like a pendulum because societies change over time. The push/pull over what is acceptable is a good thing. It’s at the fringes that the battles are fought and won and this help determine what is considered polite discourse. For instance it wasn’t long ago that the word “pregnant” was considered a dirty word and wasn’t uttered on television.
- EnergyAmy 2y ago
  Related, the history of "pregnant woman" is interesting. Used to be that the "pregnant" part was controversial but "woman" was fine. Now "pregnant" is fine, but the "woman" part is controversial.
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  I think it would be interesting if there was a real "free speech" movement, but my observation is that "free speech" in your context just means speech that suits the claimant politically. That's why in an era of "free speech" we're seeing draconian social media and age verification laws in red states; cops being called out to shut down pro-Palestine protests; or a virtually endless list of hypocrisy from folks like Elon Musk (starting with tossing the ElonJet guy off the platform and moving on from there.)
  - reaperman 2y ago
    For loud movements above a certain size, this certainly rings true for me. Obviously there are a lot of people out there who truly believe in actual free speech - I’m one of them … but there’s some kind of fine line. It still feels a bit like harassment when groups on campuses (often not anyone with any affiliation to the school, bussed in by special interest money) are deliberately “getting in my face” as I walk between classes. I don’t mind them being there, but feels like they should have to stay 2 feet off the walkways and not go right up to people. I feel the same way about restaurant barkers/criers in the French Quarter though. When I say “bussed in by special interest money” I’m not calling out “George Soros” or anything. And its not like 100 people or anything - just 1-5. I’ve seen it done across the entire political spectrum - PragerU, Anti-zionist groups, churches, nation of islam, DNC, etc. I spend time sympathetically talking with a lot of the groups and learn they’re often poor individuals who have a lot of time and moneyed groups take advantage of their time and convince them to heckle for their cause, and set up drivers / ride shares across the metro area to get random people to the campus. For me its the aggression and attempts to incite angry responses which I find debatable: whether incendiary behavior should be considered “legal free speech”. Its often not just “speech” but body positioning and direct targeted aggressive engagement of individual passersby which feels calculated to make people feel aggressed while maintaining some degree of plausible deniability.
_blz2 2y ago
For better.
throwawaymanbot 2y ago
[dead]

aprilthird2021 2y ago

Especially the Columbia Board turning off it's entire Law Review website because it published an article about the international legal frameworks them at grew out of the Nakba. Whatever side you take, it's shocking how quickly elite colleges have whiplashed back and forth and basically taken no simple, practical, strong stance that both upholds order and the freedom of academic expression they've long been known for. These diversity statements were a large part of it. By making your offensiveness and marketability to students (esp. URM students) a fundamental part of one's hirability, these statements were a part of chipping away at academic freedom that's now led to where we are today.

EA-3167 2y ago
I don't find it shocking, because these institutions have never cared about these individual issues, they just want to be anodyne and acceptable to their target audiences. In a time of turmoil, it's hard to be find that universally acceptable stance.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  I don't think this is true. These institutions did used to care about academic freedom and the ideals they were built around. They have become enormous and full of money and administrators who don't want to jeopardize the gravy train they're on. And now academic freedom is just a marketing term rather than something real

TheBlight 2y ago

I don't anticipate conventional institutions regaining academic credibility nor returning to former prominence vs. new learning and academic models continuing to disrupt them.

aprilthird2021 2y ago
What possible new learning and academic model brings the number one thing everyone in the world pays absurd amounts for in an Ivy League education: status and connections?

skhunted 2y ago

In the 70s and 80s conservative decried the free speech atmosphere on campuses. Liberals took the position that free speech was more important than regulating so called anti-patriotic sentiments. Now conservatives clamor for free speech and liberals seek to regulate so called hateful speech. These things have always swung like a pendulum because societies change over time. The push/pull over what is acceptable is a good thing. It’s at the fringes that the battles are fought and won and this help determine what is considered polite discourse. For instance it wasn’t long ago that the word “pregnant” was considered a dirty word and wasn’t uttered on television.

EnergyAmy 2y ago
Related, the history of "pregnant woman" is interesting. Used to be that the "pregnant" part was controversial but "woman" was fine. Now "pregnant" is fine, but the "woman" part is controversial.
matthewdgreen 2y ago
I think it would be interesting if there was a real "free speech" movement, but my observation is that "free speech" in your context just means speech that suits the claimant politically. That's why in an era of "free speech" we're seeing draconian social media and age verification laws in red states; cops being called out to shut down pro-Palestine protests; or a virtually endless list of hypocrisy from folks like Elon Musk (starting with tossing the ElonJet guy off the platform and moving on from there.)
- reaperman 2y ago
  For loud movements above a certain size, this certainly rings true for me. Obviously there are a lot of people out there who truly believe in actual free speech - I’m one of them … but there’s some kind of fine line. It still feels a bit like harassment when groups on campuses (often not anyone with any affiliation to the school, bussed in by special interest money) are deliberately “getting in my face” as I walk between classes. I don’t mind them being there, but feels like they should have to stay 2 feet off the walkways and not go right up to people. I feel the same way about restaurant barkers/criers in the French Quarter though. When I say “bussed in by special interest money” I’m not calling out “George Soros” or anything. And its not like 100 people or anything - just 1-5. I’ve seen it done across the entire political spectrum - PragerU, Anti-zionist groups, churches, nation of islam, DNC, etc. I spend time sympathetically talking with a lot of the groups and learn they’re often poor individuals who have a lot of time and moneyed groups take advantage of their time and convince them to heckle for their cause, and set up drivers / ride shares across the metro area to get random people to the campus. For me its the aggression and attempts to incite angry responses which I find debatable: whether incendiary behavior should be considered “legal free speech”. Its often not just “speech” but body positioning and direct targeted aggressive engagement of individual passersby which feels calculated to make people feel aggressed while maintaining some degree of plausible deniability.

_blz2 2y ago

For better.

throwawaymanbot 2y ago

[dead]